HIRA DEVI Vs. HARINATH CHAURASIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1988 (Ann.6), 14-04-88 (Ann.8), 24-12-87 (Ann.5) and 20-5-77 (Ann.3), passed on the objections taken by the judgment-debtor, the petitioners, in execution proceedings in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the contract which was decreed and the decree became final against the petitioners.

(2.) The aforesaid decree was put in execution by respondent No. 1. The petitioners, judgment- debtors filed objections under S.47 of the Civil P.C. (for short the Code) stating that the suit was barred by S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act), as the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 did not allege in his plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence the suit could not have been decreed and the decree itself was without jurisdiction and nullity, hence the execution application could not be allowed.

(3.) Respondent No. 1, however, refuted the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and alleged that sufficient allegations required for a suit for specific performance of the contract, were made. Further those objections must have been in any case, raised at the initial stage before the issues were framed, and in case they were not raised, these objections of the judgment-debtor were not maintainable when the decree has been put in execution, as once the decree has been put in execution, only the objections pertaining to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree could be raised and those objections could not be raised which could have been raised at the initial stage before framing issues or in any case before the suit was decreed. It was further alleged that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree except in very exceptional circumstances where the decree itself was without jurisdiction. The learned Munsif, however, rejected the objections of the petitioners under S.47 of the Civil P.C. The revision against that order also failed by order dated 18-03-88. It is against these orders the present petition has been filed.