Legal representatives cannot reopen a decree on a mental-illness plea already rejected against their predecessor.

The respondents’ predecessor obtained an ex parte specific-performance decree against Nagarajan, predecessor of the petitioners, on 10 March 1994.

Nagarajan’s attempts to set aside the decree, including a challenge alleging mental illness, were unsuccessful; this Court dismissed his revision in CRP No. 959 of 2009.

A sale deed was executed in favour of the decree-holder on 24 January 2001, and execution proceedings for delivery of possession remained pending.

After being impleaded in the execution proceedings and entering appearance, the petitioners filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC on 13 August 2026, contending that the decree was obtained by fraud because Nagarajan suffered from a mental disorder.

The executing court dismissed the application without numbering it.

The petitioners challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the executing court was justified in dismissing the petitioners’ application challenging the decree as fraudulent and inexecutable, without numbering it?

Whether the petitioners could rely on Nagarajan’s alleged mental illness when that plea had already been raised unsuccessfully by Nagarajan in earlier proceedings?

Whether the petitioners’ delay in challenging the decree, while execution remained pending, supported dismissal of their application?

Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC was invoked by the petitioners to seek a determination that the decree was inexecutable, while Section 115 CPC provided the basis for revision of the executing court’s order.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in CRP No. 959 of 2009, in which Nagarajan’s plea of mental illness had been rejected; it treated the petitioners, claiming through him, as unable to revive that same unsuccessful plea.

The Court also referred to Periyammal v. Rajamani, (2025) INSC 329, for the Supreme Court’s direction that execution applications be disposed of expeditiously, ordinarily within six months.

The Court found that Nagarajan had already pursued proceedings to set aside the ex parte decree and had unsuccessfully raised mental illness before this Court.

The petitioners, claiming through Nagarajan, could not reassert that same ground.

The petitioners had been served in the execution proceedings in September 2024, entered appearance in October 2024, but waited until August 2026 to challenge the decree; the Court considered this delay significant.

Given that the decree dated 10 March 1994 remained unexecuted after approximately 23 years, the Court also emphasised the need for expeditious execution and found no error in the executing court’s dismissal of the application.

It dismissed the civil revision petition, closed the connected miscellaneous petition, and made no order as to costs.