Dismissed¶34

P. Mohanraj v. S. Geetha

Madras HC17 Jan 2025CRP/130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; C.R.P.No.130 of 2025; S.M.Subramaniam J.; Section 115 CPC revision; Section 47 CPC objections in execution; executing court cannot go behind the decree; rent control decree finality; tenant/judgment debtor; RCOP.No.797 of 2015; E.P.No.595 of 2021; E.A.No.4 of 2024; XV Small Causes Court Chennai; Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (2001) 6 SCC 534; Pradeep Mehra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1395; CRP dismissed; execution warrant permitted.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the order in E.A.No.4 of 2024 stands confirmed and the respondent/judgment holder is permitted to execute the warrant already issued by the XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.1013 of 2025) closed. ¶34

P. Mohanraj Vs S. Geetha — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the application (E.A.No.4 of 2024) filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC in the execution proceedings is entertainable, and whether the order of the Rent Control Court thereon ought to be set aside.

¶19

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings of the Rent Control Court, which are in consonance with established legal principles; the Rent Control Court rightly considered the scope of Section 47 CPC, having found the Section 47 petition not entertainable since the issues stood already adjudicated and a decree passed.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The jural relationship of tenancy stood admitted by the tenant in the rent control proceedings; his appeal was dismissed confirming the Rent Court order and no further appeal was preferred against the dismissal of the CRP, leaving nothing open for re-adjudication in execution under Section 47 CPC.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 16.12.2024 of the XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in E.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.P.No.595 of 2021 in RCOP.No.797 of 2015. The petitioner, tenant/judgment debtor, whose earlier CRP.No.1183 of 2024 was dismissed for default, filed an application under Section 47 CPC questioning executability of the rent control decree. The Rent Control Court, relying on Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534, and Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1395, held the Section 47 petition not entertainable, as the executing court cannot go behind the decree or re-adjudicate issues already decided, particularly where the jural relationship was admitted and the appellate orders had attained finality. The High Court found no infirmity or perversity in these findings, confirmed the impugned order, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, permitted the respondent/judgment holder to execute the warrant already issued, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

¶1

C.R.P.No.130 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

C.R.P.No.130 of 2025 and CMP.No.1013 of 2025

¶7

P.Mohanraj ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

S.Geetha ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order passed in EA No.4 of 2024 in EP No.595 of 2021 in RCOP No.797 of 2015 dated 16.12.2024 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai and allowing this Revision Petition.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani for Mr.K.Murthy

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Civil Revision Petition on hand has been instituted to assail the order

¶14

dated 16.12.2024 passed in E.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.P.No.595 of 2021 in RCOP.No.797 of 2015 on the file of the XV Court of Small Causes at Chennai.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/6

C.R.P.No.130 of 2025

The petitioner is the tenant/judgment debtor in the execution petition. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in CRP.No.1183 of 2024 was dismissed for default. The decree holder filed execution petition, which was ordered. The petitioner/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.4 of 2024 under Section 47 CPC. The Rent Control Court adjudicated the issues elaborately and considered whether the petition filed under Section 47 CPC is to be allowed or not.

¶20

The scope of Section 47 CPC has been considered by the Rent Control Court elaborately, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a judgment debtor and the decree against him is in force. The Rent Control Court relied on the case of the Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others¹ , in para 24, the Apex Court held that, “the exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole. Thus, it is plain that executing court can allow objection under Section 47 of the Code to the executability of the decree, if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a nullity, apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution under

¶21

1(2001) 6 SCC 534

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/6

¶24

C.R.P.No.130 of 2025

¶25

law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its

¶26

passing."

¶27

In the case of Pradeep Mehra Vs Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since

¶28

Deceased Tur. Lrs.) & Others² , the Apex Court held that “a bare perusal of the Section 47 of CPC shows that all questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court. But the important aspect to remember is that these questions are limited to the "execution of the decree". The executing court can never go behind the decree. Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court, unless the court's order is itself without jurisdiction.”

¶29

In the present case, petitioner/judgment debtor had already admitted that Exhibit P5 is the Rental Agreement dated 18-01-2007. The jural relationship has been admitted by the tenant in the rent control proceedings. The appeal filed by him was dismissed, confirming the order of Rent Court. Against the dismissal of CRP, no further appeal has been preferred. Under these circumstances, the Rent Control Court found that the petition filed under

¶30

2 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1395

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶32

C.R.P.No.130 of 2025

¶33

Section 47 CPC is not entertainable and the Court cannot re-adjudicate the issues already adjudicated and a decree has been passed. This Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the findings of the Rent Control Court, which is in consonance with the established legal principles and the Rent Control Court rightly considered the scope of Section 47 of CPC in the context of the facts of the present case.

¶34

Thus, the present CRP is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the order passed in EA No.4 of 2024 in EP No.595 of 2021 in RCOP No.797 of 2015 dated 16.12.2024 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai stands confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The respondent/judgment holder is permitted to execute the warrant already issued by the learned XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

17.01.2025

¶36

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order gd

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/6

C.R.P.No.130 of 2025