The petitioner filed show-cause today. The grounds stated in the show-cause petition are convincing and thereby accepted.

The case is taken up for admission hearing. At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate of the petitioner submits that he has filed this M.A. u/s 47 of the C.P.C. and also files another application u/o XXI rule 26 of the C.P.C. and praying for necessary order of dismissal of the E.A. 03 of 2024 and also praying for stay operation of all further proceedings of that Execution case till disposal of this Miscellaneous Application case. He further submits that the petitioner has sufficient grounds to entertain this application which they have filed and the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if this application is not allowed.

Perused the entire Miscellaneous Application filed u/s 47 of the C.P.C. as well as the application filed u/o XXI rule 26 of the C.P.C.

It is not disputed that in section 47 of the CP.C. the Executing Court can only go into questions that are limited to the execution of decree and can never go behind the decree.

As per section 47 of the C.P.C. all questions are arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relation to the execution, discharged or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Court executing the decree. Therefore, the question arises whether the petitioner Tiru Fine Residency LLP. is either Complainant or O.P. of the Consumser  Case no. 03 of 2023 or either decree holder or judgment debtor in E.A. 03 OF 2024. From perusal of these two records viz. C.C. 03 of 2023 & E.A. 03 of 2024 we find that this petitioner/ Tiru Fine Residency LLP.  is neither the petitioner nor the O.P./neither DHR/nor JDR i.e. this petitioner  Tiru Fine Residency LLP. is barely a stranger to this M.A.

Moreover, scope of review u/s 47 of the C.P.C. is limited. Questions already decided by any Court/Commission cannot be permitted to be reargued.

Even, if the judgment sought to be reviewed as erroneous the same cannot be a ground for review as an erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the Higher Forum but cannot be subject matter of review by the executing Court/Commission.

Moreover, Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long­ drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that filing of Miscellaneous Application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. The Court observed that there is a disturbing trend of filing such repeated applications after pronouncement of a final judgment; such  practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation. The legal reasoning behind the Hon’ble Supreme Court disapproval of using Miscellaneous Applications to modify judgments is outlined in following relevant case:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application No 1572 of 2021 (decided on October 4th, 2021) by THE Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

In view of above, we find no merit to admit the M.A. being no. 02 of 2024 and therefore the same is dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be given to the petitioner free of cost.