It is a settled rule that all questions that pertain to the pre-decretal matters shall be raised in defence during trial and could not be allowed to be raised in execution proceedings.

15. It is a settled rule that all questions that pertain to the pre-decretal matters shall be raised in defence during trial and could not be allowed to be raised in execution proceedings. Executing court cannot go behind or beyond the decree. In a similar case “Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others v. Shalimar General Insurance Limited and 2 others” (1994 SCMR 22) wherein a decree for recovery of money granted in a suit against insurance company as well as the truck driver in an accident case, the civil court granted decree against both of them jointly and severely for the suit amount. In the execution proceedings an objection was raised that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 16,000/- and therefore, the decree pertaining to insurance company with full decretal amount of Rs. 400,000/- was without jurisdiction and impermissible. The objection sustained at the High Court level but the order was set aside by the August Supreme Court on the ground that the executing court could not go beyond the decree, and that pre-decretal matters/questions could not be agitated in execution proceedings. The operative part of the judgment for facility of guidance is reproduced hereunder: 

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record and the precedents we are of the view that no doubt that the liability of the appellants was limited under the relevant statute. In the suit filed by the appellants, the respondent No.1 filed the written statement. It did not take the plea of limited liability. It produced its Manager as D.W.1, however decree was passed in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. The respondent No.1 filed an appeal but did not prosecute it and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent No.1 then filed an application for restoration but did not prosecute. This too, was dismissed. Thus, the decree became final. In the execution proceedings, it was not open to the respondent No.1 to take up the plea which he had not taken before the learned trial court during the course of the hearing of the suit which was ultimately decreed and the decree was allowed to become final. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 itself is responsible for the decree against. It is pertinent to mentioned here that even though its liability was limited it is not open to the respondent No.1 judgment debtor now to contend that its liability has not been correctly assessed or determined. If it were permissible, there will be no end or finality to the judgment and decree which had become final. Precedents noted and analysed above make quite clear that once a decree is passed it has to be executed in its terms and it is not open to the executing Court to go behind it and redetermine the liability of the parties. In this view of the matter, there is no option but to allow this appeal and hold that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in giving effect to the plea of the respondent No.1 which had not been raised before the learned trial court which granted the decree to the appellants….

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
1643006.1399-14
2018 LHC 3512