LAWS(DLH)-1975-9-4

ADDISON PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. SATNRAM PARMANAND

Decided On September 12, 1975
ADDISON PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED Appellant
V/S
SANTRAM PARMANAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a civil suit before High Court parties entered into a compromise on 19-8-71 and a decree was passed on 22-8-71. Decretal sum was agreed to be paid in instalments. After some payment there was default and D.H. applied for execution. J.D.'s raised objections and claimed that the decree was passed by fraud. Issues were framed and the case was set down for recording of evidence. D.H. then made an application that decree cannot be questioned in execution proceedings and also that evidence was not necessary. After narrating above facts, judgement para 4 onwards is :

(2.) Mr. R.L. Aggarwal, had contended that the objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree ; in other words the question as to the correctness or validity of the decree cannot be gone into in execution proceedings. According to him, the question as to the validity of the decree is not one in execution, or about the discharge or satisfaction of the decree and can be gone into only by way of a separate suit and not in execution proceedings. However, an exception has been made, urged the counsel that the validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings when the ground is that the Court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction. The objections which impeach the decree itself, are not one relating to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on Hira Lal Patni vs. Sri Kali Nath, AIR 1962, SC 199 wherein it was held :

(3.) The counsel contended that the objectors are not questioning the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in passing the decree in the suit; the challenge of the objectors is that the decree was obtained on the basis of the compromise dated August 19, 1972, which compromise was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. These question do not. according to counsel, relate to the execution of the decree but relate to impeaching the decree itself.