Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 773 (ORI)

Parameswar Ray v. Rameswar Ray

2017-07-21

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : DR. A.K.RATH, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the orders dated 23.6.2016, 27.9.2016 and 5.11.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rourkela in Execution Case No.2 of 2010. By order dated 23.6.2016 the learned executing court dismissed the application of the J.Drs under Sec. 47 read with Sec.151 C.P.C., whereas by order dated 27.9.2016, the application filed by the J.Drs under Sec.151 of C.P.C. was rejected. By order dated 5.11.2016, the J.Drs have been directed to vacate the suit house within one month. 2. Opposite party as plaintiff instituted T.S.No.40 of 2001 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Panposh for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of possession over the suit schedule house and recovery of possession, if found to be dispossessed in the meantime, impleading the petitioners as defendants. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants filed R.F.A.No.45 of 2007. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded to the learned trial court. After remand the suit was decreed. Against the said judgment, the defendants filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rourkela. The same having been dismissed, they filed R.S.A.No.329 of 2010 before this Court. The appeal was dismissed. On 26.6.2010 the D.Hr levied Execution Case No.2 of 2004. J.Drs filed an application under Sec. 47 C.P.C. challenging the excitability of the decree. The D.Hr filed objection. On 23.6.2016 the executing court dismissed the application holding inter alia that the same is not maintainable as barred by limitation. Assailing the said order, the J.Drs filed Civil Revision No.5 of 2016 before the 1st Additional District Judge, Rourkela. The revisional court held that revision is not maintainable. While the matter stood thus, J.Drs filed an application under Sec.151 C.P.C., being I.A.No.2 of 2016 challenging excitability of decree in the executing court. The same was rejected on 27.9.2016. 3. Mr.Sahu, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned executing court committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in dismissing the application filed by the J.Drs under Sec. 47 C.P.C. as barred by limitation. The same was rejected on 27.9.2016. 3. Mr.Sahu, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned executing court committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in dismissing the application filed by the J.Drs under Sec. 47 C.P.C. as barred by limitation. He further submitted that assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants filed R.F.A.No.45 of 2007 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rourkela. The same having been dismissed, they filed R.S.A.No.329 of 2010 before this Court. The same was dismissed on 2.9.2015. Thus, the application under Sec. 47 of C.P.C. filed by the J.Drs was well within the time. He further contended that the suit schedule property belongs to Orissa State Housing Board. Though property was leased out in favour of the D.Hr, but the same is a joint family property. The Orissa State Housing Board was not a party to the suit. Thus the decree is a nullity. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate, per contra, submitted that the decree has attained finality. The D.Hr has levied execution case. The application filed by the J.Drs under Sec. 47 of C.P.C. was rejected. Subsequently application under Sec. 151 C.P.C. was filed seeking the selfsame relief. The learned trial court rejected the said application on merit. 5. Sub.Sec.1 of Sec.47 C.P.C. provides that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. 6. On an interpretation of Sec.47 C.P.C., the apex Court in the case of M/s. Breakwel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.R.Selvam Alagappan, AIR 2017 SC 1577 , held : “19. It is no longer res integra that an Executing Court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties there under. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus in-executable. An erroneous decree cannot be equaled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well as to render the decree in-executable. 20. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus in-executable. An erroneous decree cannot be equaled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well as to render the decree in-executable. 20. As it is, Section 47 of the Code mandates determination by an executing court, questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not contemplate any adjudication beyond the same. A decree of court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the excitability thereof. 21. Judicial precedents to the effect that the purview of scrutiny under Section 47 of the Code qua a decree is limited to objections to its excitability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness are plethoric. This Court, amongst others in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others 1971 (1) SCR 66 :(AIR 1977 SC 1475) in essence enunciated that only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of objection under Section 47 of the Code and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts. The following extract from this decision seems apt: “A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree between the parties or their representatives; it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again, when the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record: where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.” 22. Though this view has echoed time out of number in similar pronouncements of this Court, in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University and others, AIR 2001 SC 2552 , while dwelling on the scope of Section 47 of the Code, it was ruled that the powers of the court there under are quite different and much narrower than those in appeal/revision or review. It was reiterated that the exercise of power under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole and an executing court can allow objection to the excitability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and is a nullity, apart from the ground that it is not capable of execution under the law, either because the same was passed in ignorance of such provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree in-executable after its passing. None of the above eventualities as recognised in law for rendering a decree in-executable exists in the case in hand. For obvious reasons, we do not wish to burden this adjudication by multiplying the decisions favouring the same view. 23. None of the above eventualities as recognised in law for rendering a decree in-executable exists in the case in hand. For obvious reasons, we do not wish to burden this adjudication by multiplying the decisions favouring the same view. 23. Having regard to the contextual facts and the objections raised by the respondent, we are of the unhesitant opinion that no case has been made out to entertain the remonstrance against the decree or the application under Section 47 CPC. Both the Executing Court and the High Court, in our comprehension, have not only erred in construing the scope and ambit of scrutiny under Section 47 CPC, but have also overlooked the fact that the decree does not suffer either from any jurisdictional error or is otherwise invalid in law. The objections to the execution petition as well as to the application under Section 47 CPC filed by the respondent do not either disclose any substantial defence to the decree or testify the same to be suffering from any jurisdictional infirmity or invalidity. These are therefore rejected. 24. On a consideration of all relevant aspects in the entirety, we are thus disinclined to sustain the impugned orders and hereby set-aside the same. The appeals are allowed. The Executing Court would proceed with the execution proceedings and take it to the logical end with utmost expedition. No costs.” 7. The instant case may be examined on the anvil of the decision cited supra. The learned trial court came to hold that the suit property has been leased out in the name of D.Hr. The J.Drs have not taken any steps to prove that the same is a joint family property. Cursorily the Orissa State Housing Board has not filed any application challenging the excitability of the decree. The stand taken by the defendants that the suit schedule property is the joint family property has been negatived by the learned trial court. The decree passed by the learned trial court has attained finality. 8. The apex Court in the case of M/s.Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that it is no longer res integra that an Executing Court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties there under. 8. The apex Court in the case of M/s.Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that it is no longer res integra that an Executing Court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties there under. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus in-executable. An erroneous decree cannot be equaled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well as to render the decree in-executable. It was further held that the exercise of power under Sec.47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole and an executing court can allow objection to the excitability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and is a nullity, apart from the ground that it is not capable of execution under the law, either because the same was passed in ignorance of such provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree in-executable after its passing. 9. In the wake of aforesaid, the petition, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.