https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194409 Section 47 CPC requires the executing court to decide all questions arising between the parties to the decree within the execution proceedings themselves. An objection that a Section 47 application is not maintainable does not, by itself, justify eschewing oral evidence or documentary evidence already recorded in the application. The judgment debtor may lead evidence, and the decree holder retains the right of cross-examination and rebuttal evidence. The Madras High Court upheld the execution court's order rejecting the prayer to eschew evidence and dismiss the application, and directed that the maintainability issue be decided on merits in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 09:50:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194409 Section 47 CPC requires the executing court to decide all questions arising between the parties to the decree within the execution proceedings themselves. An objection that a Section 47 application is not maintainable does not, by itself, justify eschewing oral evidence or documentary evidence already recorded in the application. The judgment debtor may lead evidence, and the decree holder retains the right of cross-examination and rebuttal evidence. The Madras High Court upheld the execution court's order rejecting the prayer to eschew evidence and dismiss the application, and directed that the maintainability issue be decided on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194409