Skip to content
LAW LIBRARY.Online
Central Act · India · PART II — Execution

Section 47 CPC Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Edition: User-supplied Law Library CPC page, attributed to India Code as on 10 January 2026; retrieved 6 November 2026

(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 I.—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.]

State amendment

Uttar Pradesh Amendment of section 47.— In section 47 of the principal Act, Explanation II inserted by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954, shall be omitted. [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, s. 3]

Source document ↗

Judgments on Section 47

LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 121 · High Court of Kerala

James V. Kurian v. V.K. Sam

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 78313 : 2026 KLT OnLine 2353 : 2026 KHC OnLine 941

SubjectCivil Law
ActsCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47 & Order XXXII Rule 15

Revision petitioners/judgment debtors challenged the execution of a decree for declaration of title and mandatory injunction, contending that the decree was a nullity as no enquiry was conducted under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC regarding the alleged unsoundness of mind of the deceased first respondent.…

LOK 1952 (8) Ker. 142 · High Court of Kerala

Kumaran Rama Panicker v. Variathu Ouseph

Equivalent citations: 1952 KLT 599 : 1952 KHC 110

ActsCode of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47

In the absence of a specific statutory enabling provision (such as S. 5 of the Cochin Tenancy Act XV of 1113 or S. 6 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants’ Improvements Act I of 1900), a mortgagee-defendant cannot claim in execution the value of improvements…