Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the executing court could decide the executability of the decree on a ground not raised in the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the order dismissing execution should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Analysis: Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree are within the jurisdiction of the executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, where the court proceeds to decide a ground that was neither pleaded nor canvassed, the affected party is deprived of an opportunity to meet that case, which offends natural justice. In such a situation, the proper course is to remit the matter so that the parties may be heard on the disputed issue and any connected application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may also be dealt with appropriately.
Conclusion: The executing court's approach was found improper, and the matter was remitted to the court below for fresh decision after hearing both sides.
Ratio Decidendi: An executing court may determine questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree, but it cannot finally decide an unpleaded issue without giving the affected party an opportunity of hearing; such a determination warrants remand for adjudication after notice and hearing.