IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 890 of 2025

RAJNISH PANDEY

Versus

GANGA PRASAD AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ashish Kumar Pathak-Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey-Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi-Advocate for the respondent No. 11.

ORDER counsel for the petitioner/objector that during course of execution of the decree when the clerk of Court (Machkuri) along with revenue authorities went to the spot then he prepared a report dated 17.05.2025 mentioning therein that as per current map the construction stands in survey No. 405. On the strength of the said report Annexure C-6, it is argued before this Court that the identity and location of the construction of the original defendant No. 1 is in serious dispute, that whether it is in survey No. 405, or in Survey No. 390.

By way of the present petition, challenge is made to the order passed

by the Executing Court, placed on record as Annexure C-8 dated 05.08.2025 whereby the Executing Court has rejected the application of the petitioner/objector under Section 47 CPC whereby the petitioner/objector had raised objection to execution of the decree and had sought adjudication by the Executing Court that whether the house in question which is to be demolished and possession of the land to be handed over to the decree

holder, is in survey No. 405 or in Survey No. 390.

2. The petitioner has vehemently argued that there are two sale-deeds

in favour of the original defendant No. 1 which are placed on record as Annexure C/2 and C/3 and both the sale deeds categorically mention that the land which is being transferred is situated in survey number 405. The present petitioner/objector is the son of original defendant No. 1. It is contended by

3. Per contra, counsel for the decree holder has vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and it is under obligation to execute the decree and only because clerk of Court (Machkuri) had given some report, the Executing Court is not under obligation to reopen the entire matter and carry out enquiry which has already been conducted at the time of adjudication of the suit.

4. Upon considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents placed on record, it is not disputed that the purpose of objection under Section 47 CPC is to prevent frivolous and unnecessary litigation and achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising in relation to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jini Dhanrajgir and another v. Shibu Mathew and Anr. Etc., AIR 2023 SC 2567 held as under:-

"29. Section 47 CPC, being one of the most important provisions relating to execution of decrees, mandates that the court executing the decree shall determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives in relation to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and that such questions may not be adjudicated in a separate suit. What is intended by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the executing court is to prevent needless and unnecessary litigation and to achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising for discussion in relation to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Should there be any resistance offered or obstruction raised impeding due execution of a decree made by a court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions of Rules 97, 101 and 98 Order 21 enable the executing court to adjudicate the inter se claims of the decree-holder and the third parties in the execution proceedings themselves to avoid prolongation of litigation by driving the parties to institute independent suits. No wonder, the provisions contained in Rules 97 to 106 Order 21CPC under the sub-heading “Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder o