IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.807 of 2010 Shailendra Kumar Versus Raj Kumari Devi & Ors. ----------- 4 25-7-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 6-10-2010 passed by the Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur, in Execution Case No. 2 of 2010 by which the petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the judgment debtor, has been rejected. There is no dispute that the revision petitioner had been a tenant of the suit premises and Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1992 had been filed for his eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The Eviction Suit was decreed and the eviction decree had been affirmed up to this Court. The eviction decree had been affirmed by this Court in second appellate stage. Thereafter, the plaintiff-decree holder filed Execution Case No. 2 of 2010 for execution of the aforesaid decree. However, during the pendency of the execution case the decree holder died. Her heirs had got themselves substituted in the execution case and pursued the same. 2 The judgment debtor had filed a petition, purporting to be under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising objection to the execution of the decree, stating that the eviction decree being on the basis of personal necessity of the decree holder, the same did not survive after the demise of the decree holder and therefore the prayer was for dismissal of the execution case.The substituted decree holders filed their rejoinder to the aforesaid objection of the judgment debtor. The Executing Court after hearing the parties has come to the finding that the objection, as raised by the judgment debtor, does not fall within the scope of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore on that basis the objection has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the eviction decree had been obtained on the ground of personal necessity alone and after the death of the decree holder before the decree has been executed, the decree becomes inexecutable on that score. He has further submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the nature and scope of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has wrongly not regarded his objection as miscellaneous case for the purpose of hearing 3 and disposal in a full-fledged manner. The reliance has also been placed on a decision in the case of . Ambalika Padhi Vs. Sh. Radhakrishna Padhi[ A.I.R. 1992(S.C.) 431] in support of the proposition as above mentioned. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, however, supported the impugned order. After hearing the submissions I find that there is no dispute that the eviction proceeding had obtained finality after dismissal of the second appeal by this Court and thereafter the eviction decree has been put to execution by the decree holder. It is well-settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The objection of the judgment debtor, if accepted, will frustrate the decree which had attained finality.The provision in the Code of Civil Procedure relating to objections at the execution stage before executing court do not contemplate an objection leading to reopening of issues settled by the decree with well-settled exception when the decree, on the face of the record, is inherently void. The distinction between the stage before passing of the decree and after the decree attains finality, has always to be borne in mind. It is not the objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree, as it is, is incapable of execution. His objection is to 4 the validity of the decree which cannot be entertained by the executing court. The apex court in Basudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & others[A.I.R. 1970 (SC) 1475] has held as follows: “ A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties.” In view of the discussions made above, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)