### Cryptic ex parte judgment failing Order XX requirements is a nullity and inexecutable under Section 47 CPC.

The respondents’ predecessor filed a suit (O.S.No.470 of 1986) against the petitioners’ predecessors for declaration of title over the 1st schedule property and recovery of possession of the 2nd schedule property.

During the pendency of the suit, the original parties died and their legal heirs were impleaded.

The suit was decreed *ex parte* on 12.09.2002.

The decree-holders filed an execution petition (E.P.No.46 of 2009) in 2009.

The petitioners (judgment debtors) filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC (E.A.No.34 of 2014) to declare the decree null and void and inexecutable.

The Trial Court dismissed this application on 06.10.2025, which led to the present Civil Revision Petitions.

The Court primarily applied Order 20 Rules 4, 5, and 6 of the CPC, which mandate that a judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.

It relied on the principle that a cryptic judgment failing these requirements is not a judgment in the eye of law.

Regarding Section 47 CPC, the Court noted that while an executing court cannot go beyond the decree, a decree that is *void ab initio* or passed in ignorance of fundamental legal provisions can be challenged in execution.

Precedents such as *Arun Lal v. Union of India* and *Subbathal v. Narayanasamy* were cited to support the interference with illegal/inexecutable decrees in collateral or revision proceedings.

The Court observed that the *ex parte* judgment dated 12.09.2002 was merely two lines long and failed to discuss the pleadings, the written statement filed by the second defendant (which claimed ownership and existing structures), the documents marked, or the points for determination.

Such a "cryptic" order does not qualify as a judgment under Order 20 CPC.

Furthermore, the Court noted a significant procedural lacuna: the relief for recovery of possession was sought specifically against the "second defendant" and was never amended to include his legal heirs or assignees.

The plaintiffs had attempted to amend the decree and the execution schedule twice (in 2016 and 2024) but withdrew both applications, indicating awareness of the decree's legal infirmities.

Consequently, the decree could not be enlarged to bind the other defendants.

The Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, set aside the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.34 of 2014, and specifically set aside the original *ex parte* judgment and decree dated 12.09.2002.

No costs were awarded.