Madras High Court
Anushiya Begam vs The Shriram City Union Finance ... on 7 February, 2023
2023/MHC/605
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.2085 of 2023
Anushiya Begam ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Shriram City Union Finance Limited,
Represented through
N.Vengatesan,
No.289/7A,
Salem Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order in E.A.No.70 of 2021 in
E.P.No.25 of 2021 in A.C.P.No.116 of 2018 dated 14.09.2022 on the file of
the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District and
allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nellaiappan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated
14.09.2022 passed in E.A.No.70 of 2021 in E.P.No.25 of 2021 in
A.C.P.No.116 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the Execution Petition
filed in E.P.No.25 of 2021. The husband of the revision petitioner availed
loan facility for the development of his business from the 1st respondent/
The Shriram City Union Finance Limited. He was a defaulter and the 1st
respondent initiated action for recovery of money in A.C.P.No.116 of 2018.
The Court passed decree in favour of the 1st respondent and based on the
decree, Execution Petition was filed in E.P.No.25 of 2021.
3. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No.70 of 2021 under Section 47
of C.P.C., to declare the decree as non executable. The Execution Court
adjudicated the issues and made a finding that the scope of Section 47 of
C.P.C., cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of disputed
issues. Arbitration award passed in A.C.P.No.116 of 2018 became final and
the revision petitioner has not chosen to file any appeal against the award.
While so, the Execution Court cannot entertain an application under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
47 of C.P.C., for the purpose of adjudicating certain issues raised on merits
in the application.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that Section 47 (1)
stipulates that “All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which
the decree was passed, or their representatives and relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by
the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.”
5. Therefore, the questions raising between the parties must be in
relation to the execution of decree and thus, adjudication of fresh issues or
the issues already adjudicated in the suit on merits are impermissible.
6. Certain observations made in the judgments are factual findings,
which would not provide a ground for nullifying the validity of the
judgment and decree otherwise passed on merits. Inferences drawn based on
documents or relying on the arguments or judgments advanced on behalf of
the parties to the lis also cannot be a ground to invoke Section 47 of C.P.C.
At the outset, remedy is an appeal contemplated under the law and not to
file an application in the Execution Proceedings to invalidate the decree
otherwise passed on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
7. Judgments delivered became final in respect of the Court
concerned. Re-adjudication of merits are impermissible in Execution
Proceedings. The Court delivered judgments itself cannot revisit the validity
of the judgment by expanding the scope of Section 47 of C.P.C., Grounds
for appeal cannot be grounds to entertain application in Execution
Proceedings, which is beyond the scope of the spirit of Section 47 of C.P.C.,
Grounds raised by the judgment debtor may be meritorious on some
occasions, even then the remedy would be an appeal and not application in
Execution Proceedings.
8. The decree holder is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The
Execution Proceedings are to be disposed of within a period of six months.
Scope of Section 47 for raising certain objections cannot be expanded for
the purpose of adjudication of issues on merits. Thus, the language
employed in Section 47 of C.P.C., cannot be misinterpreted for the purpose
of entertaining an application for considering the grounds on merits or
otherwise. Thus, in the present case, the trial Court has rightly considered
the issues.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
9. In view of the fact that in the present case, Arbitral award was
passed against the revision petitioner and the grounds raised in the
application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C., may be a ground for an appeal,
but certainly it cannot be adjudicated in the Execution Proceedings initiated
by the 1st respondent/decree holder.
10. This being the factum, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed
in E.A.No.70 of 2021 in E.P.No.25 of 2021 in A.C.P.No.116 of 2018 on the
file of the III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District
stands confirmed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition in
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
07.02.2023
kak
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
The III Additional District Judge,
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.255 of 2023
07.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
