An executing court must consider substantial Section 47 objections affecting a decree’s executability before refusing a stay.

The opposite party obtained an ex parte decree for eviction against the petitioner in O. Suit No. 203 of 2010.

The petitioner’s application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside that decree remained pending, as did his application under Section 47 CPC challenging executability on the grounds that the property was Khasmahal land and that he had been recorded as a raiyat. A separate title suit concerning the same property was also pending, and an order directing the parties to maintain status quo had been affirmed by the High Court. The Executing Court rejected the petitioner’s applications to stay execution; the petitioner challenged those orders in revision.

1. Whether the Executing Court was justified in refusing to stay execution while the petitioner’s Section 47 CPC application challenging the decree’s executability remained undecided.

2. Whether execution should be stayed pending the petitioner’s application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and in light of the pending title suit and status quo order.

Section 47 CPC permits the executing court to determine questions between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree; an executing court cannot go beyond the decree, but must consider a properly raised challenge to executability.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides the procedure for seeking to set aside an ex parte decree, while Order XXI Rule 26 CPC was invoked by the petitioner as a basis for a stay.

Under Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, a court may take cautious cognizance of subsequent events materially affecting relief, subject to the limits of law and justice.

Under Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, mutation or revenue entries do not create or extinguish title and have no presumptive value as to title.

Under Jehal Tanti v. Nageshwar Singh, a transaction made in breach of an injunction may be unlawful.

The Court held that the Executing Court had rejected the stay applications without considering the substance of the Section 47 application: the petitioner’s claim that the property was Khasmahal land, that he had obtained a possession certificate, and that he had been recorded as a raiyat. Those matters, together with the pending title suit concerning the same property, could bear on executability and required consideration; the Court did not decide their merits or treat the revenue entry as proof of title.

Although the petitioner’s Order IX Rule 13 application remained pending, he had not sought a stay from that court. The Court therefore ordered a limited stay and directed him to apply there, leaving that court to decide any application independently.

Execution in O. Ex. No. 08 of 2018 was stayed until 31 December 2026 or until further orders, whichever occurred earlier. The petitioner was directed to approach the Order IX Rule 13 court for a stay; that court must decide any application in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations in this judgment.