Section 47 cannot be used to reopen concluded challenges to a final decree.

The respondents obtained a decree for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs in O.S. No. 232/2017.

The petitioners/judgment debtors had contended in the suit that the first respondent was of unsound mind and that no enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) had been conducted.

After the decree was affirmed through the appellate proceedings, the petitioners raised the alleged non-compliance in E.A. No. 2/2026 in execution proceedings, arguing that the decree was a nullity.

The Execution Court dismissed the application, prompting this revision.

1. Whether the executing court could, under Section 47 CPC, determine whether the decree was a nullity because no enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC had been conducted concerning the first respondent’s capacity.

2. Whether the petitioners could reopen that objection in execution after it had been raised in the earlier proceedings and the decree had attained finality.

Section 47 CPC requires the executing court to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree; under subsection (3), it may determine whether a person is or is not a representative of a party.

In Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata v. Fulchand, [(1997) 10 SCC 387], the Supreme Court described Section 47 as broad in scope, while explaining subsection (3) in the context of disputes over representative status.

The Court relied on Roy Thomas v. Lekha Roy, [2019 (2) KHC 130], concerning representation under Order XXXII CPC.

It also applied Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs v. V. Rajamani, [(2025) 9 SCC 568], and Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, [(2021) 6 SCC 418], for the principle that an execution court should not entertain objections that were considered, or could with due diligence have been raised, during adjudication of the suit.

The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction was exercised under Section 115 CPC.

The petitioners did not claim to be representatives of the deceased first respondent; their objection concerned the alleged absence of an enquiry into his mental capacity.

The Court held that Section 47(3) addresses disputes about representative status and did not provide a basis to reopen that objection at the execution stage.

The objection had been raised in the earlier litigation, and the decree had attained finality; the petitioners therefore could not relitigate the issue through an execution application.

The Court further considered that the suit had been decreed in the first respondent’s favour and concluded that the alleged procedural omission did not furnish the judgment debtors a ground to resist execution after finality.

Finding no illegality, impropriety or irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC, it dismissed the civil revision petition and directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Execution Court.