Civil Revision No. 662 of 2008(O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 662 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2009. Chhinder Singh ...Petiitioner Versus Harnek Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Civil Misc. No.19571 of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. Execution application is taken on record. Civil Revision No.662 of 2008. A civil suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was decreed by the Civil Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.1992. After the grant of that decree, the judgment debtor mortgaged a part of the land in issue in favour of PADB, Jagraon. Along with execution application, the decree holder filed a plea on 6.8.2005 for issuance of a direction to the revenue authorities to sanction the mutation of 15 kanals 8 marlas of land on the basis of a Civil Court decree dated 30.9.1992 after setting aside the mortgaged of that land ( 5 kanals 5 marlas) by respondent-judgment debtor in favour of PADB, Jagraon but the learned Trial Court held that though exparte proceedings had been ordered in the execution application against Civil Revision No. 662 of 2008(O&M) -2- **** the judgment debtor “but in my considered view, sale deed and the mortgage deed and the attachment of the land, already affected cannot be ordered to be set aside in the present execution petition.” It is apparent from the record that the impugned mortgage came into being (rightly or wrongly) at a date subsequent to the decretal of the suit in favour of the decree holder/petitioner, vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.1992. On the basis of that Civil Court decree, the petitioner- plaintiff-decree holder can only validly ask the revenue authorities to sanction mutation in terms of that decree but he cannot insist upon the Executing Court to set aside the subsequently effected mortgage deed in the execution proceedings. For that purpose, obviously, the plaintiff-decree holder has to take recourse to an independent remedy available to him under the law. An Executing Court is not competent to set aside the impugned mortgage. Learned counsel for the decree holder argues that the provisions of Section 47 of the C.P.C. are fully applicable to the given case and it is for the Executing Court only to adjudicate upon the controversy about the validity or otherwise of the subsequent effected mortgage deed. The plea raised is thoroughly misconceived. Section 47 of the C.P.C. would envisage the disposal of a controversy between the parties to the suit. This inference is deducible from the underlined portion of Section 47 which is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree- (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree Civil Revision No. 662 of 2008(O&M) -3- **** and not by a separate suit. XXXX XXXX1 XXXX” In that view of things, it is apparent that the present petition is denuded of merit. Dismissed in limine. January 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge