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.
