JAYA DEVI vs BHUPESH KUMAR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20th March, 2025 + CM(M) 524/2025 & CM APPL. 16348-16349/2025 JAYA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suraj Yadav, Advocate. versus BHUPESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. This Court is conscious of the limited scope and ambit of appreciation, while dealing with an application filed under Section 47 CPC. 2. It is settled position of law that the Executing Court can allow objection under Section 47 CPC only if it is found that the decree is void ab initio or nullity or if it is not capable of execution under the law. 3. Reference in this regard be made to one recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pradeep Mehra vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since deceased Thr. LRs) & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1395. Para 10, 11 and 12 of said judgment read as under:- “10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 524/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:21.03.2025 17:59:45 court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court which had allowed the execution of the decree in 2013, unless the court's order is itself without jurisdiction. More importantly this order (the order dated 12.02.2013), was never challenged by the tenants/judgment debtors before any forum. 11. The multiple stages a civil suit invariably has to go through before it reaches finality, is to ensure that any error in law is cured by the higher cou