The High Court dismissed the civil revision seeking challenge to an executing court's order rejecting an objection under Section 47 CPC regarding excess area execution, noting the plea was already raised and repelled at appellate stages.
Revision against the rejection of the objection under Section 47 CPC was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 131 of 2018
Revisionist :- Surendra Prasad Opposite Party :- Somara Devi Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Pathak
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at length.
The order impugned in this revision dated 23.04.2018, is one whereby an objection under Section 47 CPC filed by the revisionist has been rejected by the executing Court.
From a perusal of the order impugned, it emerges as is also the submission of counsel for the revisionist that the decree in favour of the decree holder, opposite party is being executed over an area, in excess of the sale deed in her favour, which sale deed was the basis of her claim in the suit, which was decreed.
The objection has been rejected by the executing Court noticing that this same precise plea had been raised by the revisionist at the first and second appellate stages. After detailed discussions on this aspect, the same had been repelled by the first and second appellate courts.
Confronted with this observation, counsel for the revisionist has no reply to offer.
Under the circumstances, the reason given by the executing Court for rejecting the objection under Section 47 CPC that it is not competent to go behind the decree, is perfectly justified and calls for no interference.
The revision is found to be without merit, as the order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Mayank
Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, ANJANI PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea0498 85bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e210927d94 f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f85d KUMAR bdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25dbbadc93 823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Reason: I am the author of this MISHRA documentLocation: Date: 2018-05-31 16:02:50
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisionist can challenge an executed decree based on excess area execution after failing to raise the same objection at appellate stages.
Whether the executing court was justified in rejecting a Section 47 CPC objection noting lack of jurisdiction to go behind the decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Prasad
Somara Devi
Anjani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
