Executing Court cannot go behind decree to reopen adjudicated issues of property identity or site plan.

The Appellant (Sarita Parwanda) challenged an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Executing Court, which dismissed her objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC and her application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC

The underlying suit regarding a property in Kalkaji Extension was decreed in favor of the Respondent on 05.01.2022, and the subsequent appeal by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 25.04.2023

In the execution proceedings, the Appellant raised objections regarding the identity of the property and the accuracy of the site plan, asserting that the decree was obtained by misleading the court

1. Whether an Executing Court can entertain objections regarding the identity of a property that were already adjudicated upon in the original suit and first appeal

2. Whether the appointment of a Local Commissioner is permissible in execution proceedings to resolve disputes previously settled during the trial

The Court applied the fundamental principle that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands, unless it is a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction, as established in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman

Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, which holds that execution proceedings cannot be used to reopen issues that attained finality in original proceedings

The procedural framework was governed by Order XXI Rule 58(4) and Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Court observed that the Appellant’s objections regarding the site plan and property identity were not based on any "supervening circumstance" arising after the decree, but were the exact same pleas previously rejected by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

The Court reasoned that since the identity of the property had already been adjudicated, the Appellant’s request for a Local Commissioner was a "device" to indirectly reagitate concluded issues

Applying the doctrine that an Executing Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the terms of the decree, the Court found that the Appellant's maneuvers were intended solely to stall execution

Since no jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the Executing Court's refusal to reopen these settled facts, the appellate court declined to interfere

The Court affirmed that issues which have attained finality between parties cannot be reopened in execution

The impugned order of the Executing Court was upheld as being free from jurisdictional error