Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. 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 and not by a separate suit. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
(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 and not by a separate suit.
1* * * * *
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
2[Explanation 1.-- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.-- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]
Section 47, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-16.pdf 2017-03-21 (not same-date order-15/17 ROPs). CA 2016. CPC 47: the executing court cannot go behind the decree or refuse execution on a defence that should have been taken in the suit; objections in execution are confined to the executing court's own questions. Map cpc 47.
On this section: s.47: questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are for the executing court, but that court cannot go behind the decree or reopen a defence that belonged in the suit.
-
P. K. Mohanram vs B. N. Ananthachary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A document creating immediate rights in favor of beneficiaries in praesenti, coupled with an explicit prohibition against revocation by the settlor, constitutes a settlement deed and not a will, even if the enjoyment of the property is postponed until after the settlor's death. The substance and intention of the document, as gathered from a comprehensive view of all its terms, is determinative of its character, not its nomenclature or form. An interest created in a settlement deed is vested, not contingent, when the beneficiary acquires a present right to future enjoyment, and such vested interest is not defeated by postponement of enjoyment or by the death of the beneficiary before obtaining possession.
On this section: Referenced in context of the Rajes Kanta Roy case regarding execution of compromise decrees and objections thereto.
-
Discovery Drilling Pte Limited vs Parmod Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A foreign judgment passed by a court lacking competent jurisdiction over the defendant cannot be enforced in India under Section 44A CPC, even if the foreign court is a 'superior Court' of a 'reciprocating territory'. Specifically, where a defendant is added to proceedings in a foreign court without their written consent and the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the specialized jurisdiction of that court, the foreign court lacks competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, and the resulting judgment falls within the exception specified in Section 13(a) CPC and is not enforceable in India.
On this section: Provisions applicable to execution proceedings which are made applicable to District Court executing foreign decrees under Section 44A
-
Zila Panchayat Uttarkashi vs State and Another
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a magistrate receives an application under Section 456 Cr.P.C. for restoration of possession in a matter where previous courts have already granted and confirmed the direction for restoration of possession, the magistrate should not register a new criminal case but should instead issue directions to the police for compliance with the previous court orders. Registration of a new case in such circumstances constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The magistrate's duty is to ensure compliance with existing court orders, not to create new proceedings.
On this section: Application for restoration of possession during execution proceedings. Referenced in the context of the District Judge's order directing removal of Zila Panchayat's articles from the property.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… A review of the said order of the learned Single Judge was sought. However, the same was dismissed on 4th January, 2011. However, the defendants did not challenge the decree or the order passed on the revision application or review for three years. Instead, they were advised to raise objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the execution proceedings. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendants' conduct needs to be deprecated. The revenue entries were illegally altered to enable them to raise a contention regarding the lack of title on the part …
-
… A review of the said order of the learned Single Judge was sought. However, the same was dismissed on 4th January, 2011. However, the defendants did not challenge the decree or the order passed on the revision application or review for three years. Instead, they were advised to raise objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the execution proceedings. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendants' conduct needs to be deprecated. The revenue entries were illegally altered to enable them to raise a contention regarding the lack of title on the part …
-
… A review of the said order of the learned Single Judge was sought. However, the same was dismissed on 4th January, 2011. However, the defendants did not challenge the decree or the order passed on the revision application or review for three years. Instead, they were advised to raise objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the execution proceedings. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendants' conduct needs to be deprecated. The revenue entries were illegally altered to enable them to raise a contention regarding the lack of title on the part …
Questions about Section 47
What have the courts held on Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan (21 Mar 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.47: questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are for the executing court, but that court cannot go behind the decree or reopen a defence that belonged in the suit. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 47, section 47 CPC, section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 47 rule 1. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan (21 Mar 2017).
What should I read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 47, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.