Executing courts cannot reopen decrees for limitation or Order II Rule 2 errors absent nullity.

The respondents’ original suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning 463 sq. ft. of land was dismissed.

In appeal, the plaint was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the competent court.

The respondents subsequently brought a suit for specific performance, which was decreed ex parte on 13 February 2017.

The original defendant had appeared and filed a written statement, but did not challenge the decree by appeal or an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; he died in July 2019.

In execution, his legal representatives sought to challenge the decree under Section 47 CPC, alleging that the specific-performance suit was time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, and improperly brought after return of the earlier plaint.

The executing court rejected their application, prompting this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the legal representatives could use Section 47 CPC in execution to challenge the decree as barred by limitation or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

2. Whether the alleged alteration of the claim after return of the earlier plaint, or the other objections raised, rendered the decree a nullity and therefore inexecutable.

Section 47 CPC requires an executing court to decide questions between the parties or their representatives relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree, but does not permit the court to go behind the decree or sit in appeal over it.

Under Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajbhai Abdul Rehman, an erroneous decree remains binding unless set aside in appropriate proceedings; only a decree passed without inherent jurisdiction, or otherwise a nullity, may be resisted in execution.

Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan and Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni reaffirm that limited exception and the executing court’s duty to enforce the decree as passed.

Limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act and the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC concern the suit’s maintainability and merits; they do not, without more, establish that the decree is a nullity.

The objections required reconsideration of the earlier proceedings, the pleadings and terms of the agreement, the cause of action and the trial court’s limitation determination—matters for the suit court or an appropriate challenge to the decree, not execution.

The trial court was competent to hear the specific-performance suit; the original defendant had been served, appeared and filed a written statement, and the decree was not challenged through the available procedures.

Even if the suit involved an error concerning limitation, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or the effect of returning the earlier plaint, that would be an error in adjudication rather than an inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Virgo Industries therefore did not assist the petitioners in execution, and the asserted hardship of losing their home could not justify disregarding a final decree.

The decree was not shown to be a nullity, and the executing court committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the Section 47 CPC application.

The Article 227 petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.