An ex parte decree set aside under Order IX Rule 13 cannot thereafter support execution.

T.S. No. 419 of 1996 was instituted before the Sub-Judge-III, Patna, and an ex parte decree for Rs. 5,62,05,000 was drawn and signed on 7 September 2000.

The decree-holder initiated Execution Case No. 2 of 2001 before the Patna Court. The judgment debtor filed Miscellaneous Case No. 4A of 2001 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree and stay of execution; the application was dismissed for non-appearance on 3 June 2006.

The execution proceeding was transferred to Calcutta in February 2007 and was subsequently registered before the High Court as E.C. No. 129 of 2007.

During reconstruction of the missing execution record, the judgment debtor produced communications from its erstwhile advocates indicating that, by an order dated 4 August 2012, the ex parte decree had been set aside and the suit restored; a written statement was thereafter affirmed on 14 February 2013, and a later communication stated that the restored suit had been dismissed for default on 22 June 2013.

The decree-holder disputed the authenticity and evidentiary value of these documents.

The judgment debtor consequently sought dismissal of the execution proceeding on the ground that the decree no longer remained enforceable.

Whether the ex parte decree dated 7 September 2000 ceased to possess enforceable efficacy after the alleged order dated 4 August 2012 setting it aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Whether the subsequent dismissal of the restored suit for default on 22 June 2013, in the absence of any order reviving the decree, rendered E.C. No. 129 of 2007 incapable of continuation.

Whether the executing Court could dismiss the execution proceeding and recall the order dated 27 March 2025 under Sections 47 and 151 CPC.

Section 47 CPC empowers the executing Court to determine questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, but execution presupposes the subsistence of an enforceable decree.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides for setting aside an ex parte decree; once such decree is set aside, the suit proceeds from the stage directed by the Court and the cancelled decree cannot ordinarily form the basis of execution.

A pending execution proceeding, transfer of the execution record, or reconstruction of missing papers cannot revive a decree that has ceased to operate.

Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent power of the Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, including termination of an execution proceeding founded upon a decree lacking operative efficacy.

The Court treated the advocate’s letter dated 6 August 2012, the written statement affirmed on 14 February 2013, and the communication dated 8 August 2013 as a sequence of documents reflecting the setting aside of the ex parte decree, restoration of the suit, and its subsequent dismissal for default.

Although the original order dated 4 August 2012 and complete certified order-sheet were unavailable, the Court held that their absence did not, by itself, establish that the order had never been passed; the contemporaneous procedural acts corroborated the judgment debtor’s account.

The decree-holder produced no subsequent order setting aside, modifying, recalling, or reviving the order dated 4 August 2012, nor any order restoring the 7 September 2000 decree to operation.

Since the decree had ceased to operate, E.C. No. 129 of 2007 had no independent enforceable foundation, and the order directing disclosure of assets dated 27 March 2025 could not stand.

G.A. No. 1 of 2025 was allowed; the order dated 27 March 2025 was recalled; E.C. No. 129 of 2007 was dismissed; and all consequential directions issued pursuant to that order were discharged.