Objections regarding execution of decree and property inclusion must be raised before Executing Court under Section 47 CPC.

The Petitioner (Judgment Debtor) filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Pithoura.

The Naib Tahsildar had ordered the correction of revenue records and prepared a *Fard Batwara* (partition map/list) to implement a civil court decree dated 09.02.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 58A/1998.

The Petitioner contended that Khasra No. 203 (area 1.530 hectares) was illegally included in the partition proceedings despite not being part of the original civil decree.

Concurrent execution proceedings were noted to be pending before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pithoura.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge an order passed during the implementation of a decree when execution proceedings are pending and statutory remedies under the CPC are available.

2. Whether the inclusion of property allegedly outside the scope of a decree must be determined by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC.

The Court primarily applied Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandates that all questions arising between parties to a suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree must be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit or proceeding.

The Court also referenced the availability of statutory remedies under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for grievances related to revenue record corrections.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s primary grievance—the inclusion of Khasra No. 203 in the *Fard Batwara*—pertains directly to the execution of the 1999 decree.

Under the mandate of Section 47 CPC, the Executing Court is the exclusive forum for resolving disputes regarding the identity or extent of properties covered by a decree.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had failed to raise these objections before the Civil Judge in the pending execution case.

Consequently, the High Court found that invoking writ jurisdiction was improper when a specific, efficacious remedy existed before the Executing Court to determine whether the revenue authorities exceeded the scope of the decree.

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to raise all grievances regarding the inclusion of unauthorized land before the concerned Executing Court under Section 47 CPC or to seek recourse under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.