| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4691 = 1965 SLD 4691 = 1965 PLD 293 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Execution Application No. 93 of 1963 in Suit No. 113 of 1958, decided on 28th August 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui, J
Safdar Shah for Plaintiff/Decree-holder.
Execution Application No. 93 of 1963 in Suit No. 113 of 1958, decided on 28th August 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui, J
Safdar Shah for Plaintiff/Decree-holder.
MESSRS HAJI AHMED & Co.-Plaintiff (Decree-holder)
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS -----Defendant-(Judgment-debtors)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 47,151
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----Ss. 47 & 151-Validity of decree questioned on ground of fraud-Executing Court not competent to embark upon inquiry into such question-Provisions of S. 151 not attracted-Validity of decree, in execution, can be challenged only on ground of absence of inherent jurisdiction and not otherwise. The only ground which has been recognised by Courts which can be urged in execution proceedings as regards the validity of the decree is that the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to do so. Such absence of jurisdiction must be inherent. Except in such cases the execution Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree. It has no power to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree upon the ground that it was obtained by fraud. Sudindra v. Budan I L R 9 Mad. 80 and Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kati Nath A I R 1962 S C (Ind.) 199 ref. Decree------Obtained by fraud -- Setting - aside of such decree-Fraud must be of extraneous character--Mere allegation that partnership firm as constituted at time was not competent to file suit-Cannot be properly made ground of attack in fresh suit for setting aside decree. Dates of hearing: 24th and 28th August 1964. JUDGMENT This is an application for the execution of the decree passed by this Court in Suit No. 113/58. The execution is sought for the recovery of the balance of the decretal amount and interest. This execution application was filed on 16-11-62 but its progress was arrested by injunctions which were obtained by the judgment debtors in other proceedings, to which I shall revert a little later. That bar is no longer there. The material facts are these:---A decree was passed in this suit for Rs. 1,76,50;. andcosts, etc. by this Court on 2-4-59. The defendants filed a Letters Patent appeal being L. P. A. No. 20/59 which was compromised between the parties and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed by the Division Bench on 10-11-59 for Rs. 1,60,000 at 6 % interest and costs. The judgment debtors paid in all Rs. 1,03,988.51 towards the satisfaction of this decree. This is the amount which is admitted by the decree…