CDJ Law Journals

(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe Impugned Order passed by the Court below is erroneous, untenable in law and in contravention to basic tenets of law. Hence, the Petitioner herein is constrained to file the present Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds set out hereunder seeking to set aside the Impugned Order

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operations of the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 passed in EP 21 of 2020 in CFI 24/2019 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to Restrain the Respondent herein from alienating, encumbering or transferring the Petition Schedule Properties, which were otherwise attached in EP No. 21 of 2020 in CFI No. 24/2019 on the file of Hon’ble Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ramchandrapuram, pending disposal of the present CRP; and/or Pass

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toPleased to (a) Allow the present Civil Revision Petition. (b) Set aside the Order dated 03.02.2025 passed in EP No. 21 of 2020 in CFI 24/2019 on the file of Honble Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ramchandrapuram (c) Consequently, restore the EP No. 21 of 2020 in CFI 24/2019 (d) In the interim, restrain the Respondent from alienating, encumbering or transferring the Petition Schedule Properties pending disposal of the present CRP and (e) Pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operations of the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.A. 01 of 2025 in EP 21 of 2020 in CFI 24/2019 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram and pass such

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 09.05.2025 in C.R.P No. 1206 of 2025 and pass)

Common Order:

1) Civil Revision Petition No.1212 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.A.No.1 of 2025 in E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby, the Executing Court allowed the said application filed Under Section 47 of C.P.C. holding that the decree passed by the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts in CFI No.24 of 2019 dated 05.09.2019 and re-issued on 29.03.2020 is not maintainable and un-executable.

2) Civil Revision Petition No.1206 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby, the Executing Court raised the attachment order of Execution Petition schedule properties effected on 04.02.2021.

3) Since the petitioner and the respondent in both the revision petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in these revisions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order.

4) The petitioner herein is M/s.Transcom DMCC, Dubai, UAE, represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder – Mohammed Nasir Ahmed. The case of the petitioner is that it has sold/supplied the respondent Company 10,000/- metric tons of Egyptian Rock Phosphate and 22,000 metric tons of Bright Yellow Crude Sulphur in January and February 2016 respectively under sale and purchase agreements dated 04.01.2016 and 29.02.2016 respectively. Despite specific timelines for payment, the respondent defaulted in its payment obligation and total amount outstanding payable to the petitioner under the agreements accrued to US$ 3,138,000/- which is the initial outstanding liability. After elaborate deliberations and discussions, the respondent admitted its liability and agreed to settle the outstanding liability, and in furtherance of the same, the parties executed a settlement agreement along with a deed of acknowledgment dated 10.05.2017 in favour of the petitioner. As per the terms of the settlement agreement, the respondent agreed to the jurisdiction of Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (for short “DIFC”) in case any dispute arises in terms of the settlement agreement. Subsequently, the respondent made some payments between 06.05.2017 and 03.04.2019 and after deducting the same, there was still an outstanding liability of US$ 2,481,035/-, as such the petitioner was constrained to file claim petition for US$2,481,035/- before DIFC Courts registered CFI 024 2019 as per the jurisdiction agreed upon in the settlement agreement along with a deed of acknowledgment dated 10.05.2017.

5) It is the further case of the petitioner that despite service of summons as per DIFC’s RDC Rules, the respondent had not evinced any interest to participate in the proceedings, and did not appear before the DIFC Court and remained ex parte. The DIFC after following due procedure prescribed in RDC Rules 2014, basing on the evidence lead by the petitioner allowed the claim of the petitioner as against the respondent and passed a decree on 05.09.2019 along with cost certificate dated 12.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner got issued an e-mail for enforcement to the respondent on 13.10.2019 seeking payment of total amount of US$ 2,538,988.81 within 14 days from the date of notice. Thereafter, another e-mail was sent on 06.04.2020 along with notice dated 03.04.2020 on behalf of the petitioner. After receipt of the above e-mail, the respondent, though had an opportunity to file statement of defence, failed to submit the acknowledgement of service or file its statement of defence. The petitioner after expiry of the time granted, filed for default judgment as per the rules of DIFC and the same was once again intimated to the respondent through e-mail, accordingly the same was issued. Despite the same, the respondent failed to exercise its right to appeal, as such the default judgment attained finality. Finally, the petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent to make the payments as per the decree within 14 days’ time from the date of notice, failing which the petitioner would initiate execution proceedings against the respondent. As the respondent failed to respond to such legal notice and did not make payment as per the decree, the petitioner was constrained to file an application i.e. E.P.No.21 of 2020 for Execution of the Decree before the I Additional District Judge’s Court, Rajahmahendravaram.

6) It is the further case of the petitioner that the DIFC has been recognised by the Government of India to be a Superior Court vide notification dated 17.01.2020, therefore, the present decree deserves to be validly executed in India. Since the respondent failed to comply with the decree or cost certificate, it is just and necessary to bring the schedule property for sale. While so, attachment warrants and notice under Order XXI Rule 54 of C.P.C. were issued to the respondent and attachment of some identified schedule properties were affected through an interim order dated 04.02.2021 by the executing Court. Thereafter, the respondent entered appearance and challenged the attachment order dated 04.02.2021 by filing a counter to the execution petition contending that the decree is not executable. After due consideration of all the submissions made by the petitioner and the respondent and duly framing 3 issues, the executing Court passed a detailed order dated 02.03.2022 holding that the decree is executable and the attachments affected over the petition schedule properties on 04.02.2021 are valid and ordered for further steps pursuant to attachment order. As the respondent did not challenge the said attachment order, the same has attained finality.

7) While things stood thus, on 07.12.2024, the said Execution Petition was transferred from the Court of I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmahendravaram to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram. Immediately, upon such transfer, the respondent without challenging the order dated 04.02.2021 i.e. attachment order, once again, filed E.A.No.1 of 2025 under Section 47 of C.P.C. on the same grounds i.e. on the ground of maintainability of the execution petition, which was already adjudicated by the Court below vide order dated 02.03.2022. However, the Court below vide order dated 03.02.2025 allowed the E.A.No.1 of 2025 holding that the foreign decree obtained by the decree holder is un-executable and raised the attachment order dated 04.02.2021. Challenging the said orders, the present revision petitions have been filed.

8) When civil revision petition No.1206 of 2025 came up for admission, on 09.05.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:

                  “…………...

                  In the meanwhile, there shall be an order of status quo as on date with respect to the E.P. schedule properties covering E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 pending further orders.”

9) The respondent – Judgment debtor filed vacate stay petition while reiterating the contentions urged in E.A.No.1 of 2025 contending that the petitioner without proper service of summons obtained ex parte decree, as such the same is not executable, and that under Article XXIII of the UAE MLAT, the decree intended to be executed must be sent in executable form by the Ministry of Justice, UAE, but no transmission or authentication has occurred in the present case, therefore, requested to vacate the interim order passed by this Court.

10) Sri Y.Tagore Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Sanjay Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the issues raised in E.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the respondent under Section 47 of C.P.C. are barred by the principle of res judicata as they were already adjudicated by the Executing Court in the Order dated 02.03.2022. Section 11 of C.P.C. clearly bars re-agitating the same issues between the same parties. The Court below by passing the impugned order has proceeded to reverse and set aside its own attachment order, which is illegal and unsustainable and requested to allow the revision.

11) Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the decree passed by the Dubai Court is an ex- parte decree which cannot be executed and the property cannot be attached. Further, the judgment passed by the Dubai Court is not within the parameters of Section 13 of C.P.C. and the same cannot be executed in India. Further, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Court below in all respects and requested this Court to dismiss the revision petition.

12) Admittedly, the petitioner is a foreign company, which had supplied goods (Egyptian Rock Phosphate and Crude Sulphur) under commercial contracts dated 04.01.2016 and 29.02.2016. As the respondent herein committed default in payment, a settlement agreement dated 10.05.2017 was executed acknowledging liability of US$ 3,138,000/-, out of which US$ 2,481,035/- remained unpaid despite several reminders. As per the jurisdiction clause in the agreement, the petitioner approached the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court, which passed a default decree dated 05.09.2019 along with a cost certificate dated 12.02.2020, in favour of the petitioner.

13) At this stage, it is important to mention Section 44A of C.P.C. which deals with execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory, as under:

                  “44A. Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory.—

                  (1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court.

                  (2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.

                  (3) The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.

                  [Explanation 1.-- "Reciprocating territory" means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and superior Courts, with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.

                  Explanation 2.-- "Decree" with reference to a superior Court means any decree or judgment of such Court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.]]”

14) As per Section 44A of C.P.C. if certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court. The words “reciprocating territory” were defined in explanation 1 of Section 44 A, which says that any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and superior Courts, with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.

15) In exercise of the powers conferred by Explanation 1 to Section 44A of C.P.C. Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs), New Delhi issued notification dated 17.01.2020, which is as follows:

                  “G.S.R. 38 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by Explanation 1 to Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the Central Government hereby declares, United Arab Emirates to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of the said section and the following Courts in United Arab Emirates to be superior Courts of that territory, namely:-

                  (1) Federal Court –

                  (a) Federal Supreme Court;

                  (b) Federal, First Instance and Appeals Courts in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm A1 Quwain and Fujairah;

                  (2) Local Courts-

                  (a) Abu Dhabi Judicial Department;

                  (b) Dubai Courts;

                  (c) Ras A1 Khaimah Judicial Department;

                  (d) Courts of Abu Dhabi Global Markets;

                  (e) Courts of Dubai International Financial Center.

16) Basing on the said notification, the revision petitioner herein filed E.P.No.21 of 2020 before the Executing Court for execution of the decree passed by the Dubai Court. The executing Court after due consideration, allowed the execution petition on 02.03.2022 filed by the petitioner herein by holding that the decree passed by the Dubai Court is executable and also held that the attachment of the EP Schedule properties effected on 04.02.2021 is valid attachment.

17) Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A.No.1 of 2025 in E.P.No.21 of 2020 under Section 47 of C.P.C. to declare that the decree in CFI No.24 of 2019 is not maintainable. In E.A.No.1 of 2025, the Executing Court vide its order dated 03.02.2025 held that the decree passed by the Dubai Court is un-excutable and raised the attachment of the EP schedule properties effected on 04.02.2021.

18) The issues framed in E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 and in E.A.No.1 of 2025 in E.P.No.21 of 2020 with regard to maintainability of the decree obtained by Decree Holder and the finding of the Executing Court are as follows:

	Issue	Finding of the Court	Date of order
Issue Framed in E.P.No.21of 2020	Whether theforeign decree obtained by the DHr is not executable?	....... Therefore, it is concluded that the foreign decree and judgment of DIFC Courts dated 05.09.2019 is said to be on merits and enforceable in India as contemplated under Section 44A CPC.	02.03.2022
Issue framed in E.A.No.1 of 2025 in E.P.No.21of 2020	Whether the judgment passed by the Dubai Court is not a conclusive one or not within theparameters of	...... the impugned decree under Ex.R2 was obtained by the DHr without proper service of summons and in violation ofthe principles of	03.02.2025
	Section 13 of CPC and whether the same isexecutable in Republic of India or not?	natural justice, and as such it is un-executable.

19) As extracted above, in E.P.No.21 of 2020, the Executing Court vide its order dated 02.03.2022 held that the foreign decree obtained by the Decree Holder is executable. It appears from the record, the judgment debtor has not preferred any review or appeal against the said order passed by the Executing Court. Having kept quiet for almost 3 years, after the execution petition was transferred from the Court of I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, the judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.1 of 2025 raising same grounds already raised in E.P.No.21 of 2020 contending that the foreign decree is not maintainable. The Executing Court while dealing with E.A.No.1 of 2025, reversed its own finding rendered in E.A.No.21 of 2020 and held that the decree obtained by the decree holder (petitioner herein) is un-executable, such finding, in the opinion of this Court, is unsustainable as the Executing Court cannot revisit and recall its own order without there being discovery of new evidence that was not available previously despite due diligence, or there is a mistake/error.

20) If the judgment debtor is aggrieved by the finding of the executing Court vide order dated 02.03.2022, he may prefer appeal before the higher forum. But, surprisingly, after transfer of execution petition from one Court to another Court, as stated supra, the judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.1 of 2025 under Section 47 of CPC to declare that the decree passed in CFI No.24 of 2019 is not maintainable, while deciding the same, the executing Court on 03.02.2025 held that the decree obtained by the petitioner is un- executable. The said finding of the executing Court vide order dated 03.02.2025 is contrary to its earlier finding in the order dated 02.03.2022.

21) From the above, admittedly, in E.P.No.21 of 2020, the executing Court held that foreign decree and judgment of DIFC Courts dated 05.09.2019 is said to be on merits and enforceable in India. As no appeal was preferred by judgment debtor against the said finding, the said finding has attained finality and it operates as res judicata to the subsequent proceedings in the same case.

22) Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure embodies the doctrine of "Res judicata” or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment, as to the points decided either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent Court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. In the absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expenses.

23) Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines Res Judicata as:

                  No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such Issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

24) “Res Judicata” means "a thing decided". It is a common law doctrine meant to bar re-litigation of cases between the same parties in Court. Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply “Res Judicata” to preserve the effect of the first judgment. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. “Res Judicata” does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents them from multiplying judgments.

25) In “Barkat Ali Vs. Badri Narain(AIR 2008 SC 1272), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The principles of res judicata not only apply in respect of separate proceedings but the general principles also apply at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings also and the same Court is precluded to go into that question again which has been decided or deemed to have been decided by it at an early stage.”

26) In “Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa(2023 (6) ALD 134)” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The executing Court can never go behind the decree. Under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure the executing Court cannot examine the validity of the order of the Court which had allowed the execution of the decree “

27) In “Deep Chand Vs. Mohan Lal(AIR 2000 SC 1760)” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

                  “The execution of the decree should not be made futile on mere technicalities with does not, however, mean that where a decree is incapable of being executed under any provision of law it should, in all case, be executed notwithstanding such bar or prohibition.”

28) In “Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi(AIR 2021 SC 2161)” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

                  “In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution i.e., discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order XXI. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible.

29) In “Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Celem S.A. of FOS 34320 Roujan, France and Others(AIR 2017 SC 1)” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

                  “The Appellant contends that the order of the English Court is not given on merits and that it falls Under Section 13(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure as a result of which it is not conclusive and therefore in executable. We cannot accept such submission. A judgment can be considered as a judgment passed on merits when the Court deciding the case gives opportunity to the parties to the case to put forth their case and after considering the rival submissions, gives its decision in the form of an order or judgment, it is certainly an order on merits of the case in the context of interpretation of Section 13(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

                  .............

                  The principles of comity of nation demand us to respect the order of English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order, Indian Courts have to give due weight to such order unless it falls under any of the exceptions Under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

30) In “International Woolen Mills Vs. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd.( AIR 2001 SC 2134)” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

                  “The Court must have applied its mind to that matter and must have considered the evidence made available to it in order that it may be said that there has been an adjudication upon the merits of the case. It cannot be said that such a decision on the merits is possible only incases where the defendant enters appearance and contests the plaintiffs claim. Even where the defendant chooses to remain ex parte and to keep out, it is possible for the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of his claim (and such evidence is generally insisted on by the Courts in India), so that the Court may give a decision on the merits of his case after a due consideration of such evidence instead of dispensing with such consideration and giving a decree merely on account of the default of appearance of the defendant.

                  In the former case the judgement will be one on the merits of the case, while in the latter the judgment will be one not on the merits of the case. Thus it is obvious that the non-appearance of the defendant will not by itself determine the nature of the judgment one way or the other. That appears to be the reason why S. 13 does not refer to ex parte judgments falling under a separate category by themselves. A foreign Court may have its own special procedure enabling it to give a decision against the defendant who has failed to appear in spite of the summons served on him and in favour of the plaintiff, even without insisting on any evidence in support of his claim in the suit.

                  Such a judgment may be conclusive between the parties so far as that jurisdiction is concerned, but for the purpose of S. 13 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code such a judgment cannot be accepted as one given on the merits of the case, and to that extent the law in India is different from the law in other jurisdictions where foreign judgments given for default of appearance of defendants are also accepted as final and conclusive between the parties thereto.”

31) Keeping in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court has to decide whether the executing Court can decide all the questions between the parties while dealing with application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C.

32) In the present case, the executing Court while dealing with the application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. vide its order dated 03.02.2025 revisited its earlier order dated 02.03.2022, and held that the decree was obtained by the petitioner herein without proper service of summons, as such it is un-executable. For better appreciation of the case, it is appropriate to extract Section 47 of the C.P.C., which is as follows:

                  Section 47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.

                  (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

                  * * * * *

                  (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

                  Explanation 1.-- For the purposes of this section, a Plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a Defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

                  Explanation II.-- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

                  (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.

33) 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. More importantly the decree dated 05.09.2019 granted by DIFC was never challenged by the judgment debtor before any forum.

34) The validity or otherwise of a decree may be challenged by filing a properly constituted suit or availing any other remedy available under law. The reality is that pure civil matters take a long time to be decided, and regretfully it does not end with a decision, as execution of a decree is an entirely new phase in the long life of a civil litigation.

35) In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 of C.P.C. contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution i.e. discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order XXI of C.P.C. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, executing court must not go beyond the decree. In the present case, the Executing Court held that the decree was passed without proper service of summons, and revisited its own order, which is not permissible. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the executing court and the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.

36) As discussed above, the order dated 02.03.2022 passed in E.P.No.21 of 2020 by the Executing Court operates as res judicata for further proceedings in the same case. In view of the law laid down in “Barkat Ali Vs. Badri Narain”(referred supra), the principles of res judicata are not only applicable in respect of separate proceedings but the general principles of res judicata are also applicable at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings and therefore the same Court will be precluded to go into that question which has already been decided, or deemed to have been decided by it in the earlier stage. (Vide: In other words, it will be barred by the principle of res judicata, or at least by the principle of constructive res judicata. The logic here is that an execution proceeding works in different stages and if the judgment debtors have failed to take an objection and have allowed the preliminary stage to come to an end and the matter has moved to the next stage, the judgment debtor cannot raise the objection subsequently, and revert back to an earlier stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the present revision petitions deserve to be allowed.

37) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.1212 and 1206 of 2025 are allowed setting aside the orders dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram in E.A.No.01 of 2025 in E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 and E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019. No costs.

38) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide