Delhi High Court
Smt. Bhawna Malik vs Sh. Anand Krishan Dhawan on 1 September, 2025
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 1st, September, 2025
+ CM(M) 1675/2025 & CM APPL. 54634-54635/2025
SMT. BHAWNA MALIK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Chandra Sharma, Mr.
Munish Kumar Gaur, Mr. Peeyush
Kaushik and Mr. Siddharth Kaushik,
Advocates
versus
SH. ANAND KRISHAN DHAWAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satyam Chaturvedi, Mr. C.M.
Maini, Mr. Mayank Maini, Mr. Biman
Sethi and Mr. Ankit Verma,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Mr. Anand Krishan Dhawan (respondent herein) had filed a suit for
mandatory injunction and recovery of damages/mesne profits against his
sister (petitioner herein).
2. Aforesaid suit resulted in decree dated 20.09.2017.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the aforesaid suit
was earlier dismissed-in-default and the suit was got restored on her back and
thereafter, she was proceeded against ex parte.
4. Fact remains that while taking the aforesaid argument, petitioner herein
filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC praying therein that such ex
parte judgment and decree dated 20.09.2017 may be set aside. Her such
endeavour was not successful as her application was dismissed by the
concerned learned Trial Court on 22.10.2024.
5. Feeling aggrieved, she has already filed an appeal (RCA DJ 7/2025)
which pending adjudication.
6. Fact, however, remains that petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the
manner in which the suit was got restored and ex parte judgment was
allegedly obtained by the decree-holder, filed objection petition under Section
47 CPC in the execution proceedings also. Such objection petition has been
dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 31.07.2025.
7. Such order is under challenge.
8. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder appears on advance
notice and submits that there is nothing left in the present petition as pursuant
to the warrants of possession issued by the learned Executing Court, the
decree-holder has already received vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
premises on 29.08.2025.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, refutes the aforesaid
contention.
10. Be that as it may, fact remains that a bare glimpse with respect to the
objection petition filed under Section 47 CPC would indicate that the sole
grievance raised by the judgment-debtor is to the effect that the suit was got
restored in unilateral manner and, thereafter, ex parte decree was obtained
which amounted to fraud.
11. All such aspects were clearly within the domain of Order IX Rule 13
CPC and as noticed already, such contentions have been rejected by the
learned Trial Court as her said application was dismissed.
12. Needless to say, in case the petitioner herein is successful in her
aforesaid appeal, restitution would come her way, automatically.
13. No other objection or contention seems to have been taken in the
objection petition under Section 47 CPC and, therefore, evidently, the learned
Executing Court was justified in dismissing the objection petition.
14. Moreover, the scope of consideration of any such objection petition
filed under Section 47 CPC is limited one, particularly, when the objection is
coming from the judgment-debtor itself. Reference be made to Pradeep
Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1395 wherein it has been
observed that a bare perusal of Section 47 CPC would show that all questions
between the parties can be decided by the executing court, but the important
aspect to remember was that these questions are limited to the "execution of
the decree". It supplemented that the executing court can never go behind the
decree and cannot examine the validity of the order of the court, unless the
court's order is itself was without jurisdiction. Reference be also made to
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University: (2001) 6 SCC 534,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the exercise of powers
under Section 47 of CPC lies in a very narrow inspection hole and the
Executing Court, can only allow objection under Section 47 CPC to the
executability of the decree, if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a
nullity, apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution under
law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision of
law or law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its passing.
15. Clearly, the objection in question does not fall within the above
prescribed sphere and parameters.
16. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any requirement of
interfering with the impugned order as there is no illegality or perversity in
deciding the objection petition.
17. Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
18. However, it is clarified that observations made hereinabove would not,
in any manner, influence the mind of learned Appellate Court seized with the
appeal challenging dismissal of application moved under Order IX Rule 13
CPC i.e. RCA DJ 7/2025.
19. Pending applications also stands disposed of in aforesaid manner.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/dr/js
