In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against an order making attachment before judgment absolute under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 CPC, the High Court held that where the Trial Court has recorded a prima facie case, considered documentary material placed on record, and found a real threat of alienation of property with intent to defeat execution of a possible decree, the appellate court will not interfere merely because disputed questions of accounts and calculations arise. Objections to calculations and rival versions of accounts are matters for trial or for modification application before the Trial Court and cannot, by themselves, vitiate an order of attachment passed in compliance with statutory requirements. The appellate court will not substitute its discretion unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled principles governing Order XXXVIII CPC.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

GIST

In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against an order making attachment before judgment absolute under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 CPC, the High Court held that where the Trial Court has recorded a prima facie case, considered documentary material placed on record, and found a real threat of alienation of property with intent to defeat execution of a possible decree, the appellate court will not interfere merely because disputed questions of accounts and calculations arise. Objections to calculations and rival versions of accounts are matters for trial or for modification application before the Trial Court and cannot, by themselves, vitiate an order of attachment passed in compliance with statutory requirements. The appellate court will not substitute its discretion unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled principles governing Order XXXVIII CPC.

---

HEAD NOTES 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXXVIII Rules 5 & 6

Attachment before judgment — Conditions — Prima facie case and intent to defeat decree.
Attachment before judgment can be ordered where the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has a prima facie claim and that the defendant is attempting to alienate or dispose of property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a decree that may be passed.
(Paras 32–35, 39)

---

Attachment before judgment — Nature of power

Extraordinary and drastic power — To be exercised sparingly.
The power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is not intended to convert an unsecured debt into a secured one and must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory requirements and settled principles.
(Paras 34–35)

---

Attachment before judgment — Threat of alienation

Brochure and third-party affidavit — Sufficient prima facie material.
Material indicating that the defendant printed brochures in his own name and attempted to alienate property was sufficient for the Trial Court to infer a real threat of alienation capable of rendering a future decree inexecutable.
(Paras 13, 17, 39)

---

Prima facie case — Meaning

Not proof of title or final entitlement.
Prima facie case signifies a substantial and bona fide dispute requiring trial and not proof of the claim on merits.
(Paras 40–41)

---

Accounts and calculations — Dispute

Disputed calculations not ground to set aside attachment.
Where the Trial Court called for correlation statements and relied upon calculation tables filed by the plaintiff, in the absence of objections or counter-tables by the defendant at that stage, disputes regarding correctness of calculations cannot invalidate an attachment order and must be adjudicated at trial or in modification proceedings.
(Paras 42–48, 58)

---

Order XXXVIII Rule 6 CPC

Failure to furnish security — Attachment justified.
Where the defendant fails to furnish security as directed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, the Court is empowered under Rule 6 to order attachment of property sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be passed.
(Paras 16, 33)

---

Appellate jurisdiction — Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC

Limited scope of interference — Discretionary orders.
In an appeal against an interlocutory order, the appellate court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or in violation of settled principles of law.
(Paras 53–56)

---

Reasoned order

Attachment order must disclose reasons.
An order of attachment before judgment must disclose reasons demonstrating satisfaction of statutory conditions; where such reasons are recorded, the order cannot be termed non-speaking.
(Paras 49–52)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where the Trial Court, after affording opportunity, records satisfaction that (i) the plaintiff has a prima facie claim, (ii) the defendant has failed to furnish security, and (iii) there exists a real likelihood of alienation of property intended to defeat execution of a possible decree, an order making attachment before judgment absolute under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 CPC is a valid exercise of discretion. In appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, the High Court will not re-appreciate disputed accounts or substitute its discretion unless the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled law.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Nature of the Suit and Interim Proceedings

(Paras 2–10)

• The suit was a commercial original suit for recovery of ₹3,19,75,543/- based on an MOU dated 05.11.2020.

• Plaintiff alleged refundable advance, periodical advances, marketing expenses, and loss caused by unilateral conduct of the defendant.

• Defendant denied liability, asserted dissolution of MOU, refund by adjustment, and disputed calculations.

---

II. Application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC

(Paras 8–14)

• Plaintiff sought attachment before judgment alleging imminent alienation of property.

• Defendant opposed the application reiterating defences in the written statement.

• The Special Court directed furnishing of security; on failure, attachment was effected and later made absolute.

---

III. Findings of the Trial Court

(Paras 11–14, 39)

• Prima facie case established based on documents and correlation tables.

• Threat of alienation inferred from brochures and third-party affidavit.

• Observed that issues regarding interest, cancellation of MOU, and exact liability were matters for trial.

---

IV. Appellate Contentions

(Paras 22–29)

• Appellant contended absence of prima facie case, erroneous calculations, and non-speaking order.

• Respondent supported the order relying on material indicating alienation and failure to furnish security.

---

V. Legal Principles Applied

(Paras 32–38)

• Order XXXVIII Rules 5 & 6 CPC require satisfaction of intent to defeat decree.

• Attachment before judgment is extraordinary and must not be granted mechanically.

• Prima facie case does not mean final adjudication.

---

VI. Appellate Court’s Reasoning

(Paras 39–56)

• Trial Court recorded cogent reasons and complied with statutory requirements.

• Defendant failed to object to correlation tables at the appropriate stage.

• Disputed calculations are matters for trial or modification application.

• No perversity or illegality found warranting interference.

---

VII. Conclusion

(Paras 57–60)

• Appeal dismissed.

• Liberty preserved to seek modification before Trial Court.

• No costs.

Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

GIST

Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

---

HEAD NOTES 

Constitution of India — Article 226

Writ of mandamus — Free and fair investigation — Enforcement of Supreme Court directions.
High Court can issue a writ directing compliance with and faithful implementation of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to constitution and functioning of a Special Investigation Team.
(Paras 1, 28)

---

Criminal Investigation — Special Investigation Team (SIT)

SIT constituted by Supreme Court — Composition final and binding.
When the Supreme Court substitutes a State-constituted SIT with an independent SIT consisting of specifically nominated members, the investigation must be conducted only by such members and under the supervision stipulated by the Supreme Court.
(Paras 5–7, 19–24)

---

Criminal Investigation — Jurisdiction of Investigating Officer

Officer not named as SIT member — No authority to investigate.
An officer who is not a member of the SIT constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer or issue notices under the BNSS. Any such assumption of authority is without jurisdiction.
(Paras 12–14, 24–27)

---

Supreme Court Directions — Binding nature

Director, CBI — No power to alter or enlarge SIT composition.
The Director, CBI is bound by the directions of the Supreme Court and cannot, by administrative orders, permit an officer outside the reconstituted SIT to conduct investigation, as it would amount to overreaching the Supreme Court’s order.
(Paras 19–22, 25–27)

---

Investigation touching religious sentiments

Heightened standard of independence and neutrality.
Where investigation concerns matters affecting religious sentiments of crores of devotees, strict adherence to the structure and safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court is mandatory.
(Paras 21, 25)

---

Irregular investigation — Cure doctrine

Illegality curable — Not applicable where Supreme Court directions violated.
Principles permitting curing of defects in investigation do not apply where investigation itself is conducted in violation of explicit directions of the Supreme Court.
(Paras 25–27)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court substitutes a State-appointed SIT with an independent SIT of specifically identified members and mandates that investigation be carried out under a defined supervisory framework, no authority—including the Director, CBI—can enlarge, alter, or bypass that composition. Any investigation conducted by an officer not forming part of the reconstituted SIT is without jurisdiction, constitutes overreach of the Supreme Court’s order, and violates the requirement of a free and fair investigation, warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background and Genesis of the SIT

(Paras 3–7, 11)

• Crime No.470 of 2024 concerned allegations relating to use of adulterated ghee in preparation of Tirumala Laddu Prasadam.

• Statements by high constitutional functionaries and conflicting official versions led to public concern.

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in WP(C) No.622 of 2024, substituted the State-constituted SIT with an independent SIT, comprising:

  • Two officers nominated by the Director, CBI

  • Two officers nominated by the State of Andhra Pradesh

  • One senior officer of FSSAI

• Investigation was directed to be conducted under the supervision of the Director, CBI.

---

II. Grievance of the Petitioner

(Paras 2, 8–14)

• Petitioner alleged coercion, intimidation, repeated re-recording of statements, and deletion of earlier recordings.

• Notices were issued by the 10th respondent styling himself as “Investigating Officer” under Section 179 BNSS.

• The 10th respondent was not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT.

---

III. Defence of Respondents

(Paras 14–17)

• Respondents contended that the Director, CBI had acknowledged and permitted the 10th respondent to continue investigation.

• Reliance placed on precedents where defects in investigation were held curable.

---

IV. Core Legal Issue

(Paras 13, 19)

Whether an officer not named in the SIT constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions can validly act as Investigating Officer based on administrative approval by the Director, CBI.

---

V. Findings of the Court

A. Binding Nature of Supreme Court Directions

(Paras 19–22)

• The Supreme Court consciously substituted the State SIT with an independent SIT to ensure credibility and public confidence.

• The purpose and structure of such substitution could not be diluted by administrative interpretation.

B. Lack of Jurisdiction of the 10th Respondent

(Paras 24–27)

• The 10th respondent was not included among the officers nominated to the reconstituted SIT.

• Permitting him to investigate amounted to expanding the SIT beyond what was authorized by the Supreme Court.

C. Limits of Director, CBI’s Authority

(Paras 25–27)

• Supervisory control does not include power to override or modify judicially fixed composition of the investigating body.

• Proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the Director, CBI were held to overreach the Supreme Court’s order.

D. Inapplicability of “Curable Defect” Doctrine

(Paras 25–27)

• Cases relating to curable defects in investigation were distinguished.

• The present case involved jurisdictional illegality, not a mere procedural irregularity.

---

VI. Relief Granted

(Para 28)

• Writ petition allowed.

• Respondent No.2 directed to ensure free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT, in accordance with Supreme Court directions.

Criminal proceedings under Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed where the entirety of allegations arose outside India, and no part of the cause of action occurred within Indian territory. In the absence of previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 208 BNSS (Section 188 CrPC), investigation, cognizance, and trial in India were held to be without jurisdiction. The Court further held that omnibus and vague allegations against extended relatives residing abroad, without specific role attribution, amount to abuse of process. Filing of a charge-sheet in violation of subsisting stay orders and prior quashing orders vitiated the investigation. FIR and charge-sheet were quashed by invoking Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers).

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

GIST

Criminal proceedings under Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed where the entirety of allegations arose outside India, and no part of the cause of action occurred within Indian territory. In the absence of previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 208 BNSS (Section 188 CrPC), investigation, cognizance, and trial in India were held to be without jurisdiction. The Court further held that omnibus and vague allegations against extended relatives residing abroad, without specific role attribution, amount to abuse of process. Filing of a charge-sheet in violation of subsisting stay orders and prior quashing orders vitiated the investigation. FIR and charge-sheet were quashed by invoking Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers).

---

HEAD NOTES 

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 208

Offence committed outside India — Previous sanction of Central Government — Mandatory.
Where the entire offence is alleged to have been committed outside India, no inquiry or trial can be undertaken in India without prior sanction of the Central Government. In the absence of such sanction, investigation and cognizance are without jurisdiction.
(Paras 13–15, 19–21)

---

Penal Law — Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) & Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act

Territorial jurisdiction — Cause of action wholly outside India.
When all allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment occurred abroad and no part of the cause of action arose in India, prosecution in India is barred under Section 208 BNSS.
(Paras 19–21)

---

Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet

Inherent powers — Charge-sheet filed — Cognizance taken — Still quashable.
High Court retains power to quash FIR and charge-sheet even after filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
(Paras 18–21)

---

Matrimonial Offences — Implication of relatives

Omnibus and vague allegations — Relatives living abroad.
General and sweeping allegations without specific acts or role attribution against relatives, particularly those residing abroad, cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
(Paras 16–17, 20)

---

Police Investigation — Disobedience of High Court orders

Charge-sheet filed despite stay and prior quashing — Investigation vitiated.
Filing of a charge-sheet in defiance of subsisting stay orders and prior quashing of proceedings constitutes willful disregard of judicial orders, rendering the investigation unsustainable.
(Paras 2, 7, 10, 20)

---

Matrimonial Disputes — Mandatory counselling

Counselling rendered illusory — Safeguard defeated.
Mechanical endorsement of counselling, without real possibility of participation by parties residing abroad, renders the statutory requirement an empty formality.
(Paras 9, 20)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

When all allegations constituting offences under Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are alleged to have occurred outside India, no investigation, inquiry, or trial can be conducted in India without prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 208 BNSS. In the absence of such sanction, continuation of criminal proceedings is without jurisdiction and an abuse of process, warranting quashing of FIR and charge-sheet under Section 528 BNSS, even after cognizance. Further, omnibus allegations against extended relatives residing abroad, without specific role attribution, cannot sustain prosecution.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Factual Matrix

(Paras 1–5, 12–13, 19)

• FIR No.194 of 2024 was registered for offences under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act.

• Marriage occurred in India; spouses left for USA on 31.12.2022.

• All alleged acts of cruelty, harassment, intimidation, and economic abuse occurred in USA.

• No allegation of cruelty or dowry demand was made with respect to the period of stay in India.

• Complaint was lodged in India after marital discord culminated in issuance of divorce notice from USA.

---

II. Procedural Irregularities in Investigation

(Paras 2, 7, 9–10, 20)

• Proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4 had already been quashed by the High Court.

• Despite subsisting stay orders, police filed a charge-sheet and Magistrate took cognizance.

• Mandatory family counselling was shown as completed in a mechanical manner, despite accused residing abroad.

• State conceded that filing of charge-sheet during subsistence of stay was a mistake.

---

III. Application of Section 208 BNSS (Section 188 CrPC)

(Paras 13–15, 19)

• Section 208 BNSS creates a jurisdictional bar where offences are committed outside India.

• The Court found that entire cause of action arose in USA, and no part occurred in India.

• Following Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, sanction of the Central Government was mandatory.

• In absence of sanction, investigation and trial in India were held to be impermissible.

---

IV. Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives

(Paras 16–17, 20)

• Allegations against relatives were collective, vague, and without specific role attribution.

• Relatives were residing in different countries and did not reside in the matrimonial home.

• Applying Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held such prosecution to be abuse of process.

---

V. Power to Quash After Charge-sheet

(Paras 18–21)

• Relying on Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that inherent powers to quash survive even after filing of charge-sheet and cognizance.

---

VI. Conclusion

• Entire allegations occurred outside India.

• Mandatory sanction under Section 208 BNSS was absent.

• Investigation suffered from illegality and defiance of court orders.

Accordingly, FIR and charge-sheet were quashed.

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC in a land-grabbing case, to note physical features and fix boundaries with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and Revenue authorities. Held that where rival parties claim possession in different NTS numbers, local investigation is proper and necessary to elucidate the dispute. Appointment of Commissioner is a procedural aid, not collection of evidence. No prejudice caused as parties are entitled to file objections and lead evidence. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India declined, as the Trial Court exercised jurisdiction within settled legal principles. Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC in a land-grabbing case, to note physical features and fix boundaries with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and Revenue authorities. Held that where rival parties claim possession in different NTS numbers, local investigation is proper and necessary to elucidate the dispute. Appointment of Commissioner is a procedural aid, not collection of evidence. No prejudice caused as parties are entitled to file objections and lead evidence. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India declined, as the Trial Court exercised jurisdiction within settled legal principles. Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner — Local investigation — Scope.
Local investigation may be ordered where it is requisite or proper for elucidating matters in dispute, particularly in cases involving boundary and identity of land. Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence and is open to objections and rebuttal.
(Paras 16–19, 21–22)

---

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 — Proceedings

Dispute regarding encroachment — Rival claims with reference to different NTS numbers.
Where petitioners allege encroachment in NTS No.6 and respondents assert possession in NTS Nos.3, 4 & 5, local inspection by Advocate Commissioner with assistance of Mandal Surveyor is necessary to elucidate the dispute.
(Paras 20–22)

---

Advocate Commissioner — Not for collection of evidence

Appointment of Commissioner to note physical features, measurements and boundaries does not amount to collection of evidence, but is a procedural mechanism to assist the Court in arriving at the truth.
(Paras 19–22)

---

Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Scope of interference

Supervisory jurisdiction — Not appellate.
High Court will not interfere under Article 227 where the Trial Court has exercised discretion within jurisdiction, unless there is patent illegality, perversity, lack of jurisdiction, or grave miscarriage of justice.
(Paras 23–27)

---

Discretion of Trial Court — Appointment of Commissioner

Once the Trial Court forms an opinion that local investigation is necessary for resolving boundary disputes, such exercise of discretion aimed at advancing substantial justice cannot be interfered with under Article 227.
(Paras 21, 23, 26–27)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Factual Background

• The petitioner filed LGOP No.119 of 2012 alleging land grabbing by respondent Nos.1 to 10 under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (Para 3).

• Tahsildar’s report dated 22.03.2012 indicated encroachment and construction of dwelling structures (Para 4).

• Respondents denied land grabbing and asserted independent title under registered sale deeds, claiming their properties fall in NTS Nos.3, 4 & 5, not in NTS No.6 (Paras 5, 8).

• After petitioner’s evidence concluded, respondents’ evidence was closed as nil due to non-appearance, following which respondents filed:

  • I.A.No.1561 of 2024 to reopen evidence, and

  • I.A.No.1597 of 2024 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner (Paras 6–8).

• Trial Court allowed both applications. The petitioner challenged only the appointment of Advocate Commissioner (Para 12).

---

II. Legal Issue

Whether the Trial Court acted illegally or without jurisdiction in appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 15)

---

III. Legal Principles Applied

1. Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers the Court to order local investigation where it is necessary to elucidate matters in dispute (Paras 16–19).

2. The primary duty of the Court is to arrive at the truth, and the Commissioner’s report is only evidentiary in nature (Para 19).

3. Appointment of Commissioner is justified in boundary and identity disputes, particularly when rival parties claim different survey/NTS numbers (Paras 20–22).

4. Under Article 227, High Court’s power is supervisory and cannot be exercised as an appellate power; interference is limited to jurisdictional errors or grave injustice (Paras 23–27).

---

IV. Application of Law to Facts

• The dispute centered on whether respondents were in NTS No.6 (as alleged by petitioner) or in NTS Nos.3, 4 & 5 (as claimed by respondents) (Paras 21–22).

• Determination of boundaries and physical features was essential to resolve the controversy.

• The Trial Court exercised discretion to appoint Advocate Commissioner with assistance of Mandal Surveyor and Revenue authorities to ascertain boundaries with reference to Ex.A3 (Para 11).

• The petitioner retained the right to object to the report and lead rebuttal evidence, ensuring no prejudice (Para 22).

• The order did not suffer from perversity, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction (Paras 26–27).

---

V. Conclusion

The Trial Court acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with settled principles governing Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner was a legitimate procedural aid. No ground existed for interference under Article 227.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where rival parties in a land-grabbing proceeding claim possession with reference to different NTS numbers, the Trial Court is justified in appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to note physical features and fix boundaries with the assistance of revenue and survey authorities. Such appointment is a procedural aid to elucidate the dispute, does not amount to collection of evidence, and does not cause prejudice as parties retain the right to object and lead rebuttal evidence. Exercise of such discretion, being within jurisdiction and in accordance with settled principles, does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Execution Petition returned at the stage of registration on the ground that the decree holder sought damages in addition to arrears of rent. Held that the executing court has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of an execution petition by questioning entitlement under the decree. Executing court cannot go behind the decree, except where the decree is without inherent jurisdiction. Objections relating to executability can be examined only after registration of the Execution Petition. Return of E.P. held unsustainable. Civil Revision Petition allowed.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

Execution Petition returned at the stage of registration on the ground that the decree holder sought damages in addition to arrears of rent. Held that the executing court has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of an execution petition by questioning entitlement under the decree. Executing court cannot go behind the decree, except where the decree is without inherent jurisdiction. Objections relating to executability can be examined only after registration of the Execution Petition. Return of E.P. held unsustainable. Civil Revision Petition allowed.

---

HEAD NOTE

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Execution of decree

Executing court cannot go behind the decree or question its legality or correctness. Only exception is where the decree is without inherent jurisdiction.
(Paras 8–11)

---

Execution Petition — Registration stage — Jurisdiction of executing court

At the stage of registration of an Execution Petition, the executing court has no jurisdiction to raise objections regarding entitlement of the decree holder under the decree. Such objections cannot be a ground for return of the E.P.
(Paras 7, 11)

---

Execution of decree — Arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation

Where the decree itself awards arrears of rent for one period and damages for use and occupation for a subsequent period, the executing court cannot question such entitlement at the stage of registration of the execution petition.
(Paras 5–7)

---

Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Supervisory jurisdiction

High Court can interfere under Article 227 where the executing court commits a jurisdictional error by refusing to register an execution petition contrary to settled law.
(Paras 11, 13)

---

Execution proceedings — Stage of consideration of objections

Questions relating to executability of the decree or jurisdiction of the court passing the decree can be considered only after registration of the execution petition, and not at the threshold.