Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
Objections Regarding Suit Maintainability & Trial Court’s Jurisdiction Can Be Raised During Execution Proceedings: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court reiterated that the Executing Court can refuse to execute the decree if it is a nullity and in addition to the settled position that a decree obtained by fraud or against the wrong person is a nullity, there are other circumstances which can render a decree to be a nullity.
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, clarified that at the stage of execution proceedings, objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the Trial Court can be raised for consideration.
The Court clarified thus in a Civil Appeal filed by Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC) against the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which dismissed its Writ Petition challenging the civil proceedings regarding the computation of interest on the decretal amount and the consequential execution proceedings.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “… it is amply clear that at the stage of execution proceedings, objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the trial Court can be raised for consideration, and the executing court is well within its powers to deal with such objections in accordance with law, if such objections, from the face of the records, do not require adjudication by trial. However, in the case on hand, the objections raised by the appellant regarding the maintainability and the execution proceedings have been rejected by the Executing Court at the threshold, without going into the contentions.”
The Bench reiterated that the Executing Court can refuse to execute the decree if it is a nullity and in addition to the settled position that a decree obtained by fraud or against the wrong person is a nullity, there are other circumstances which can render a decree to be a nullity.
Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash Mehrotra appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… it is settled legal position, applying the doctrine of sub silentio, that a decision is not an authority on a point that has not been argued or decided. In the instant case, the trial Court had not framed any issues regarding the maintainability of the suit filed by Respondent No. 1 against the appellant, for the alleged default committed by Respondent No. 2, despite a plea in the written statement. Without any issue having been framed on maintainability, the matter reached up to this Court, and the decision was rendered solely on the issue of limitation. Therefore, the issues that remained undecided, but go to the root of jurisdiction and maintainability, can still be raised at the stage of execution under Section 47 CPC.”
The Court reiterated that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree passed between the parties or their representatives, unless the decree is a nullity. It further explained that as per Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the Executing Court is empowered to examine the questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and it cannot go beyond the decree; but at the same time, when a plea is raised that the decree is a nullity and hence, unenforceable, the Executing Court is bound to examine and decide such an application on its merits.
“The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings on the ground that the Court which passed the decree, was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seized of the case because the subject-matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction, or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit was instituted or the decree was passed, or on some such other ground which would have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it”, it also said.
The Court was of the opinion that the suit itself was not maintainable against the Appellant and the provisions of the repealed Act, 1993 were inapplicable to the case.
“Consequently, the execution proceedings to realize the principal with exorbitant interest calculated under the repealed Act, 1993 are unsustainable, and the decree cannot be enforced against the appellant. The trial Court, having already passed the decree, could not have entertained an application under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the post-decree application filed by Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not maintainable. Nearly four decades have elapsed in protracted litigation, and we are inclined to bring the matter to a quietus”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Vigyan Chemical Industries and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 928)