C MALLA REDDY Vs. SHIVA GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) When the revision petition is obviously misconceived and is not tenable, it has to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) The execution (petition) has been filed in respect of a decree obtained in O.S. No.43 of 1994 by the respondent-decree-holder. It is the contention of the petitioner who is the judgment-debtor that the decree is not executable because the decree has been obtained ex-parte. It is also contended that the plaintiff-decree-holder is not entitled to get any relief because the daughter-in-law and the grandson are the real beneficieries of the property in question. Even if the contention is accepted, that does not mean that the decree is inexecutable. An ex-parte decree is as well executable as a contested decree. Moreover, if the contention is that the decree has been obtained by the plaintiff who is not entitled to a decree, that question has to be agitated in the suit or by challenging the decree by way of appeal, review or revision whatever provision may apply. The decree cannot be challenged in execution. Once a decree is passed, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree or merits of the case. Thus, the decree is not inexecutable. It has been passed by a Court having jurisdiction. The contentions raised are therefore devoid of substance and the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission.