Full Judgment
C.R No.309 o”
14. 8.2013 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
He is heard on the question of admission.
The applicant/defendant/judgment debtor has filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2013, passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Waidhan District Singrauli in Execution Case No.27A/80x10, whereby under execution of the decree passed in Civil Original Suit No.27-A/09 vide dated 29.1.2010, some application filed on behalf of applicant/judgment debtor under Section 47 of CPC on dated 14.4.2013, has been dismissed.
Applicant’s counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the averments of the revision memo and the impugned order argued that in the lack of proper measurement and map of the disputed place, the warrant of possession which has been/which is issued by the executing Court against the applicant could not be executed.
He further said that without considering his objection raised in the aforesaid application under section 47 of CPC with proper approach such application has been dismissed under the wrong premises and pursuant to that some direction to deliver the possession of the disputed property was given.
With these submissions he prayed to set aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this revision.
Keeping in view his arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record including the impugned order Annexure-A-10.
It appears from the impugned order Annexure-A-10 that the impugned execution proceedings has been filed to execute the decree passed in the aforesaid Civil Original Suit No.27A/09 whereby, the decree of possession of some disputed property has been passed in favour of the respondent/decree holder.
So whatsoever objection which has been taken in the aforesaid application under Section 47 of CPC., the same could have been taken in the original suit by him and could also be decided on merits in the suit and if such thing was abandoned by the applicant, then he could not be permitted to raise the same in execution and if such objections were taken in the suit, then in the light of the impugned judgment and decree under execution, it shall be assumed that such objections were taken into consideration in the original suit and answered by the trial Court.
So, the application filed under Section 47 of CPC., could not have been entertained because there was no any material question relating to discharge, satisfaction or execution of the decree is involved in the matter.
Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.
So, in view of such principle also, the impugned order does not appears to be contrary to law or against the propriety of law which requires any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC.
Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb