EXECUTING COURT CANNOT QUESTION DECREE’S MERITS OR PERSONAL LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS UNLESS DECREE IS A NULLITY

The Respondent filed a commercial suit against M/s Rubani Productions Pvt. Ltd. based on a franchise agreement dated 12.01.2021

During proceedings, the Appellant (Director of the company) was substituted as the sole defendant after the Respondent sought to implead the directors

The Appellant initially appeared but later ceased participation, resulting in an ex parte judgment dated 14.02.2023, which restrained him from using the trademark "Bablu-Chic-inn" and ordered him to pay ₹3.9 Lacs

The Appellant sought correction of the decree under Section 152 CPC, arguing he should not be personally liable, but the application was dismissed on 23.04.2025

During execution, the Appellant filed objections under Section 47 and Order XXI Rules 26 and 59 of the CPC, claiming the decree was non-executable against him in his individual capacity

The Executing Court dismissed these objections on 19.09.2025, leading to this appeal

1. Whether an executing court can go behind a decree to adjudicate the personal liability of a director when the decree has attained finality.

2. Whether a decree becomes a nullity or non-executable under Section 47 CPC merely because it impleads a director in an individual capacity for a corporate debt.

Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts the executing court to questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree

The doctrine that an executing court cannot "go behind the decree" or sit in appeal over it

A decree must be executed according to its tenor unless it was passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a patent nullity (Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan)

The Court reasoned that the Appellant was a party to the suit, was substituted as the sole defendant with his counsel’s knowledge, and failed to challenge the original ex parte decree through a regular appeal or an application under Order IX Rule 13

The Court found that the arguments regarding the "corporate veil" or the lack of specific pleadings regarding the abuse of director authority are merits-based questions that should have been raised during the trial

Since the decree-rendering court did not lack inherent jurisdiction, the executing court was bound to take the decree as it stood

The Court further noted that the Appellant’s counsel was present when the substitution occurred yet raised no objection at that stage, and thus the decree cannot be termed a "nullity" merely for being allegedly erroneous in law

The Court affirmed that as the decree had attained finality and was not a nullity, it must be executed against the Appellant as named therein

The Court granted the Appellant liberty to challenge the original ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.02.2023 through appropriate legal remedies