Published on: 10 July 2023 at 12:34 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandates that the Executing Civil Court to 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. It is held that the provisions of Rules 97, 101 and 98 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enables the Executing Civil 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.
17. Section 47 of the 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 of Order XXI 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 of Order XXI of the CPC under the sub-heading “Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser” have been held by this Court to be a complete code in itself in Brahmdeo Chaudhary (supra) as well as in a decision of recent origin in Asgar v. Mohan Verma13. In the latter decision, it has been noted that Rules 97 to 103 of Order XXI provide the sole remedy both to parties to a suit as well as to a stranger to the decree put to execution.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
