LexM/S. BRAKEWEL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus P. R. SELVAM ALAGAPPAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 681 M/S. BRAKEWEL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA) A PVT. LTD. v. P. R. SELVAM ALAGAPPAN (Civil Appeal Nos. 4313- 4314of2017) MARCH21,2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.47 - Scope and ambit of scrutiny under - Suit for recovery by appellant-plaintiff - Decreed by trial court - Execution application by appellant - s.47 application by respondent-defendant objecting to executability of the decree - Appellant questioned the maintainability of such application by respondent - Executing Court held the application to be maintainable - Order affirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: The purview of scrutiny u!s. 47 qua a decree is limited to objections to its executability on the ground of iurisdictional infirmity or voidness - Only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of objection u/s.47 and not one which is erroneous either in !all' or on facts - Having regard to the contextual facts and the objections raised by the respondent, no case made out to entertain the application u!s. 47 - Both the Executing Court and the High Court, not only erred in construing the scope and ambit of scrutiny u/s. 47 CPC, but also overlooked the fact that the decree did not suffer either from any jurisdictional error or was otherwise invalid in law. s.47 - Executing Court - Power of - Discussed. ··Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 An Executing Court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal· over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties thereunder. It is only.in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jnrisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered 11011 est and is thus inexecutable. An erroneous decree cannot be equaled with one which is a nul!ity. In the present case, the objections raised by the appellant even if considered to exist did not infest the decree with any jurisdictional infirmity or reduce it to a nullity. 681 B c D E F G H 682 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. There are no intervening developments as well to render the decree inexecutable. [Para 19] [688-G-HJ 1.2 Section 47 of CPC mandates determination by an executing court, of questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not contemplate any adjudication beyond the same. A decree of court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the executability thereof. (Para 20] (689-A-BJ · 1.3 The purview of scruti.ny under Section 47 qua a decree is limited to obje.ctions to its executability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness. Only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of objection under Section 47 and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts. [Para 21) (689-C] Vasudev Dha11jibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Ors. [1971) 1 SCR 66 - relied on. 1.4 The powers of the Court under Section 47 are quite different and much narrower than those in appeal/revision or review. The exercise of power thereunder is microscopic and lies in a very nurow inspection hole and an executing court can allow objection to the executabilty of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and is a nullity, apart from the ground that it is not. capable of .execution under the law, either because . the same was passed in ignorance of such provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its passing. None of the above eventualities as recognised in law for rendering a decree inexecutable, exists iu the case in hand. [~ara 22] [690-B-C] Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2552 : [2001) 3 SCR 1129 - relied on. (1971) 1 SCR 66 H [2001] 3 SCR 1129 Case Law Reference relied on relied on Para 21 Para 22 MIS. BRAKEWEL AUTOMOTIVE COM~ONENTS (INDIA) 683 PVT. LTD. v. P. R. SELVAM ALAGAPPAN CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4313- A 4314 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1499 of20I6 and CMP No. 8225 of2016. . J. S. Bakshi, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. M. P. Parthiban, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the Respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.