A judgment debtor cannot relitigate jurisdiction already decided between the parties.

The respondent was executing a Mumbai High Court decree in a summary suit before the Madras High Court.

The applicants, the judgment debtors, applied under Section 47 CPC to have the decree declared unexecutable, principally alleging that the Mumbai court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the decree had been obtained by fraud. The Master dismissed that application and proceeded with execution, including ordering arrest without recording evidence of the judgment debtor’s means. The applicants sought to set aside the Master’s order and stay execution proceedings.

The High Court noted that, in an earlier inter partes proceeding, it had held that the Mumbai courts had jurisdiction to try the dispute.

Whether the Master’s dismissal of the applicants’ Section 47 CPC objection to execution warranted interference, where the objection challenged the Mumbai court’s territorial jurisdiction

Whether the execution proceedings, including the arrest order, could continue without evidence being recorded on the judgment debtor’s means

Section 47 CPC provides for determination by the executing court of questions arising between the parties to the suit relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from re-litigating an issue finally determined between them; the Court applied it to the prior determination of jurisdiction in C.R.P. No. 2091 of 2013.

The respondent also relied on the omission of former Section 47(2) CPC, which had expressly addressed objections concerning jurisdiction or limitation; the Court did not separately elaborate on that submission.

The Court held that the applicants’ renewed challenge to the Mumbai court’s jurisdiction was barred because the same jurisdictional issue had already been decided between the parties in C.R.P. No. 2091 of 2013. The Section 47 objection was therefore ill-founded, and the Master’s order dismissing it required no interference.

Separately, the Court maintained that arrest without a finding on means should remain in abeyance and directed the Master to decide the execution petition on its merits after recording evidence and hearing the parties.

The order of arrest was to remain in abeyance pending a finding on means, and the Master was directed to decide the execution petition on its merits after recording evidence and hearing the parties. No costs were awarded.