In view of the provisions of section 47 of CPC all questions arising between the parties to the suit after passing of the decree relating to execution, discharge or

In view of the provisions of section 47 of CPC all questions arising between the parties to the suit after passing of the decree relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Two essential prerequisites are to be satisfied so as to avail of the remedy provided under section 47 of CPC.

Firstly, the question/controversy should relate to either execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and secondly, the conflict/question should have been arisen between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed. Provisions of section 47 of CPC enjoin that all questions relating to execution shall be resolved by the executing court. So, all questions that arise between parties or their representatives having nexus with the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree must be decided under section 47 of CPC. The words “all questions arising” should be read to denote as “all questions directly arising”. These words only mean that the questions must be such that they relate to or affect the rights of the parties to the suit during the course of execution of decree. The expression “relating to execution” has not been defined elsewhere in the Code of Civil Procedure probably with the intention of leaving it flexible, vividly with the purpose to include any question that either hinders or affects the rights of any of the parties and it would even apply to a dispute arising in relation to execution of a decree after it had been executed as it would be a dispute relating to the execution of a decree before it had been executed. The question as to deficient or flawed execution essentially is one relating to the execution of a decree, therefore, such question must also be answered and resolved by the executing court as per the provisions of section 47 of CPC. Similarly, the words “the court executing the decree” in no way restrict the applicability of section 47 of CPC only to the proceedings initiated by the decree holder. This section would also be applicable to the proceedings initiated by the judgment debtor in case of flawed execution of decree. Therefore, filing of an application by one of the judgment debtors even in the absence of any execution petition before the court could not be objected to on the ground that no execution petition was filed by the judgment debtor for the execution of the decree particularly when the right of judgment debtor has been affected by the wrong implementation of decree.

There is no cavil with the proposition that the spirit and object of the provisions of section 47 of CPC is to provide swift relief to the parties in a matter arising out of execution of decree. The exclusive jurisdiction of an executing court in view of the scope of section 47 of CPC will indeed cover all matters concerned with the execution including wrong/flawed implementation of decree, discharge or satisfaction of an existing decree between the same parties. In view of underlying rather obvious spirit of the provisions of section 47 of CPC, the same must be liberally interpreted to bar suits which involve the question/controversy under the provisions of section 47 of CPC as this section has been introduced for the beneficial purpose of checking unnecessary and needless litigation, therefore, its operation should not be limited1. A judgment debtor, therefore, is not debarred from moving an application raising an objection qua the flawed execution of the decree by the concerned authorities in the result of which he was deprived of his legal and vested rights which even were not assailed by the decree holder.

There is no cavil with the proposition that contempt proceedings under the provisions of order XXXIX Rule 2(3) CPC are considered quasi criminal proceedings since same entail punishment of detention for a period not exceeding six months, therefore, same are to be proved upto hilt and all doubts are required to be excluded before awarding punishment in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of CPC.