A third-party claimant cannot raise new factual grounds in revision absent foundational pleadings below.

The petitioners, third-party applicants in Execution Case No. 145/2009, claimed ownership and possession of Items 2 and 3 of the suit property.

In an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), they traced their title through Judgment Debtor No. 2 and subsequent conveyances, and sought adjudication of their rights before delivery of the properties.

The Executing Court rejected the application; the petitioners challenged the relevant execution orders in a civil revision petition and a writ petition.

Before the High Court, they additionally argued that the properties were not part of the preliminary decree and were introduced only during final decree proceedings.

The Court found that this contention had not been pleaded before the Executing Court.

1. Whether the Executing Court was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ Section 47 CPC application where their pleaded claim traced title through Judgment Debtor No. 2.

2. Whether the petitioners could rely at the revision or writ stage on the contention that the properties were included only during final decree proceedings, when that factual foundation had not been pleaded before the Executing Court.

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

The Court stated that a third-party claimant invoking Section 47 must establish an independent right, title or interest in the property warranting adjudication in execution proceedings.

It also applied the procedural principle that a party cannot enlarge the case at the revisional or writ stage by introducing a factual foundation not pleaded before the court below.

The petitioners’ affidavit traced their claim to Item 3 through Judgment Debtor No. 2, who allegedly conveyed it to Puttaswamy and Jayaramu, from whom Applicant No. 1 later purchased it; the applicants similarly set out their asserted claim to Item 2.

Their affidavit did not allege that the properties were outside the preliminary decree and were brought into the proceedings only at the final-decree stage.

Because that contention formed the basis of their argument before the High Court but had no foundation in the application before the Executing Court, the Court declined to examine it.

It held that the Executing Court was justified in rejecting the Section 47 application.

It clarified that dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from challenging the final decree, insofar as it included the properties they claimed to have purchased, before the appropriate forum and subject to the law of limitation.