Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Ex parte Decree – Pending Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – No Stay – Salary Attachment Mere pendency of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, does not bar execution of the decree, in the absence of any interim stay granted by a competent court. An executing court is justified in ordering attachment of salary of the judgment-debtor when the decree remains operative and executable. (Paras 5–9)

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Ex parte Decree – Pending Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – No Stay – Salary Attachment

Mere pendency of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, does not bar execution of the decree, in the absence of any interim stay granted by a competent court.

An executing court is justified in ordering attachment of salary of the judgment-debtor when the decree remains operative and executable.

(Paras 5–9)

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – No Jurisdictional Error

In the absence of any jurisdictional error or illegality in the execution proceedings, interference under Section 115 CPC is not warranted.

(Paras 8–9)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

The pendency of an application for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, even when accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, does not render the decree inexecutable; unless there is a specific stay of execution, the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree, and an order attaching the judgment-debtor’s salary passed by the executing court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.