Madras High Court
P.Mohanraj vs S.Geetha on 17 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.R.P.No.130 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.130 of 2025
and CMP.No.1013 of 2025
P.Mohanraj ...Petitioner
Vs
S.Geetha ...Respondent
PRAYER Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order passed in EA No.4 of 2024 in EP No.595 of 2021
in RCOP No.797 of 2015 dated 16.12.2024 on the file of XV Small Causes
Court, Chennai and allowing this Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani for Mr.A.Visagan
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition on hand has been instituted to assail the order
dated 16.12.2024 passed in E.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.P.No.595 of 2021 in
RCOP.No.797 of 2015 on the file of the XV Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the tenant/judgment debtor in the execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in CRP.No.1183 of
2024 was dismissed for default. The decree holder filed execution petition,
which was ordered. The petitioner/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.4 of 2024
under Section 47 CPC. The Rent Control Court adjudicated the issues
elaborately and considered whether the petition filed under Section 47 CPC is to
be allowed or not.
3. The scope of Section 47 CPC has been considered by the Rent
Control Court elaborately, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a judgment debtor and the decree
against him is in force. The Rent Control Court relied on the case of the
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others1, in para 24,
the Apex Court held that, “the exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code
is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole. Thus, it is plain that
executing court can allow objection under Section 47 of the Code 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 the law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its passing."
1(2001) 6 SCC 534
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the case of Pradeep Mehra Vs Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since
Deceased Tur. Lrs.) & Others2, the Apex Court held that “a bare perusal of the
Section 47 of CPC shows that all questions between the parties can be decided
by the executing court. But the important aspect to remember is that these
questions are limited to the "execution of the decree". The executing court can
never go behind the decree. Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot
examine the validity of the order of the court, unless the court's order is itself
without jurisdiction.”
5. In the present case, petitioner/judgment debtor had already
admitted that Exhibit P5 is the Rental Agreement dated 18-01-2007. The jural
relationship has been admitted by the tenant in the rent control proceedings. The
appeal filed by him was dismissed, confirming the order of Rent Court. Against
the dismissal of CRP, no further appeal has been preferred. Under these
circumstances, the Rent Control Court found that the petition filed under
Section 47 CPC is not entertainable and the Court cannot re-adjudicate the
issues already adjudicated and a decree has been passed. This Court do not find
any infirmity or perversity in respect of the findings of the Rent Control Court,
which is in consonance with the established legal principles and the Rent
Control Court rightly considered the scope of Section 47 of CPC in the context
2 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1395
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the facts of the present case.
6. Thus, the present CRP is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the order
passed in EA No.4 of 2024 in EP No.595 of 2021 in RCOP No.797 of 2015
dated 16.12.2024 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai stands
confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The
respondent/judgment holder is permitted to execute the warrant already issued
by the learned XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The XV Small Causes Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gd
17.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
