Executing Court may determine judgment debtor identity under Section 47; Section 152 cannot correct substantive substitution disputes.

In execution, a dispute over whether the person proceeded against is the same judgment debtor described in the decree falls within Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because it concerns execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The Executing Court was therefore bound to determine that identity question and could not refuse to examine it by treating the matter as outside its jurisdiction. Section 152 was inapplicable because it is confined to clerical, arithmetical, and accidental slips or omissions and cannot be used to re-open the merits or substitute one person for another in execution. The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Executing Court could determine the identity of the judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the matter could be relegated to correction of the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A question arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives, relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, falls within Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the peculiar facts, the question was not an attempt to enlarge the decree but to ascertain whether the person proceeded against in execution was the same person described in the decree as the proprietor of the judgment debtor concern. The Executing Court was bound to decide that identity question, especially because the earlier revision order had specifically directed an enquiry on that aspect. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was inapplicable because it is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions, and does not permit re-examination of the merits or substitution of one person for another in execution.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant. The Executing Court had jurisdiction to determine the identity of the judgment debtor under Section 47, and Section 152 was not the proper remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute in execution is whether the person proceeded against is the same judgment debtor described in the decree, the executing court may determine that question under Section 47, and Section 152 cannot be invoked to decide such substantive identity issues.

---