(a) An objection by the judgment-debtor that the decree was obtained by fraud;
(b) An objection by the judgment-debtor that the decree is a nullity;
(c) An objection to execution by the judgment-debtor alleging that the decree-holder had before the decree agreed not to execute it;
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(d) A judgment-debtor pleads for payment or adjustment in execution of the decree;
(e) An objection by the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder has taken possession of the property not included in the decree; and
(f) An objection by the judgment-debtor that he was sued as a major while he was a minor.
(a) The question relates to the validity of the decree and not to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The execution court cannot go behind the decree and inquire into its validity. Therefore, an objection that the decree was obtained by fraud cannot be entertained in execution proceedings under Section 47 of the Code and a separate suit will be necessary.
Image Source: skynews.com.au
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(b) If the objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree is a nullity is based on the ground that the decree was passed against a dead person, without bringing his legal representative on the record, the executing court can entertain the objection.
(c) This objection does not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and can be decided only by a separate suit.
(d) Where in execution a judgment-debtor pleads for payment or adjustment the question falls within Section 47, C.P.C. and can be dealt with in execution proceedings but an uncertified payment or adjustment cannot be entertained under Section 47 of the Code by the court executing the decree.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(e) The question falls within the ambit of Section 47 of the Code and has to be dealt with in the execution proceedings.
(f) In effect, this is a plea that he was not a party and the remedy is a suit. The executing court cannot determine this objection.