Section 47 CPC cannot reopen service issues concluded after an ex parte decree becomes final.

The decree-holder obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance against the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 38 of 2006 on 28 February 2013.

The judgment-debtor’s application to condone a 731-day delay in seeking to set aside the decree was dismissed, and the challenge to that dismissal was also unsuccessful.

He subsequently filed an application under Section 47 CPC challenging execution and sought to summon the Court Ameen who had effected service of summons, to testify about service.

The Executing Court allowed the summons application, prompting the decree-holder’s revision.

The judgment-debtor’s contention that he had not been served had also been rejected in earlier proceedings, including a similar suit; the related challenge had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the Executing Court was justified in permitting the judgment-debtor to examine the Court Ameen about service of summons after the challenge to the ex parte decree had failed and become final

2. Whether the judgment-debtor’s Section 47 CPC application was maintainable where its prayers did not concern execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree

3. Whether the High Court could exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to dismiss the Section 47 application as an abuse of process

Section 47 CPC confines an executing court’s inquiry to questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree; it does not provide a means to seek relief unrelated to those matters or to reopen issues that have attained finality.

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, including to intervene where the proceedings disclose an abuse of process.

The Court also relied on the finality of the earlier proceedings rejecting the judgment-debtor’s non-service contention, including the prior High Court and Supreme Court outcomes.

The Court held that the judgment-debtor’s attempt to prove non-service through examination of the Court Ameen sought to reopen an issue that could have been raised when he sought to set aside the ex parte decree, but which had already been conclusively rejected.

The Executing Court’s view that he should be given another opportunity to establish non-service was therefore perverse in light of the concluded proceedings.

Further, the prayers in the Section 47 application sought cancellation of the ex parte decree, the sale deed, and a delivery order, none of which the Court considered questions of execution, discharge, or satisfaction within Section 47 CPC.

In view of the repeated attempts to relitigate concluded issues and delay the decree-holder’s entitlement, the Court found the application to be an abuse of process warranting intervention under Article 227.

It directed the Executing Court to dispose of R.E.A. No. 62 of 2014 and E.P. No. 53 of 2014 within two months of receiving the order; there was no order as to costs.