Ex-Parte Decree Obtained By Suppressing Vital Facts Is Nullity; Executing Court Can Examine Fraud Under Section 47 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"An ex parte decree is as good as a decree passed on contest. But, merely because the other side has not contested, the party seeking a relief is not allowed to obtain it by pleading false statements and suppressing vital facts / truth which is quite adverse to the pleaded case." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an executing court can examine the validity of an ex-parte decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it is alleged to be vitiated by fraud.

A bench of Justice B. S. Bhanumathi observed that while a court executing a decree generally cannot go behind it, this restrictive rule does not apply when the decree is a nullity due to the suppression of material facts that go to the root of the matter.

The respondent had filed a rent control eviction petition against the petitioner, securing an ex-parte decree in 2018. During the subsequent execution proceedings for delivery of possession, the petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC seeking to declare the decree null and void. She argued that she was not a tenant but the rightful owner of the property and that the decree was obtained through the fraudulent suppression of facts.

The executing court dismissed the application on the ground that it could not travel behind the decree to adjudicate title disputes. Simultaneously, the trial court rejected a separate application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone a 2000-day delay in filing a petition to set aside the original ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.

The primary question before the court was whether an executing court is empowered under Section 47 of the CPC to declare an ex-parte decree null and void based on allegations of fraud and suppression of material facts. The court was also called upon to determine whether a 2000-day delay in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree could be condoned in the absence of a reasonable explanation.

Scope Of Executing Court's Power

The High Court observed that a petition under Section 47 of the CPC can broadly be filed regarding the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree. The bench noted that insofar as execution is concerned, the inexecutability of a decree is inherent and can stem from the decree being a nullity, barred by law, or inherently vague. The court emphasized that when a decree is a nullity, it remains completely void ab initio and cannot be enforced.

Fraud Goes To The Root Of The Matter

Delving into the allegations of fraud, the bench noted that when fraud is played upon the court, the direct consequence is that the decree becomes a nullity if the deception goes to the root of the matter. The court highlighted that the petitioner had presented substantial documentary evidence, including an assignment patta and an interim injunction from a collateral civil suit, to assert her independent title over the property.

Suppression Of Truth Vitiates Favorable Orders

The court strongly deprecated the practice of obtaining favorable orders by exploiting the absence of the opposing party. The bench observed that while an ex-parte decree carries the same weight as a decree passed on contest, a litigant cannot be permitted to secure relief by pleading false statements and hiding vital truths. The court stated that a party cannot take advantage of the fact that the other side has not contested the matter to advance a deceptive case.

Executing Court Cannot Abdicate Its Duty

Criticizing the executing court's refusal to entertain the petitioner's objections, the High Court clarified that Section 47 of the CPC mandates that all questions arising between the parties relating to the execution of the suit must be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit. The bench held that the executing court ought to have thoroughly examined the contentions and documents to determine whether the decree was genuinely executable against the specific property in question.

Inordinate Delay Cannot Be Condoned Without Sufficient Cause

Addressing the separate revision petition challenging the refusal to condone the 2000-day delay in setting aside the ex-parte decree, the High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that the law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure litigation comes to a definitive end. The court noted that the petitioner had engaged counsel at various stages but failed to prosecute the case diligently.

Equitable Grounds Cannot Override Statutory Limitation

The court firmly ruled that irrespective of the length of the delay, it cannot be condoned unless supported by a reasonable cause. The bench noted that while liberal approaches are often adopted to advance substantial justice, such approaches cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation. Finding no reasonable cause for the staggering 2000-day delay, the court held that the delay could not be condoned on mere equitable grounds.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition concerning the Section 47 application, setting aside the executing court's order and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing on merits by considering the evidence of fraud. However, the court dismissed the connected revision petition, refusing to condone the 2000-day delay in the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

Date of Decision: 17 June 2026