You should write that when pure question of law is raised it has to be decided by court without considering facts of case 

2) you cannot write that court has no power to consider merits of case when question of law is raised 

Contact for same.

1. Execution petition is filed under order 21 CPC for execution of order and decree passed after conclusion of a suit by the trail court. While order 1 rule 10 CPC deals with parties to suit and rule 10 deals with suit in the name of wrong suit and also power of court to strike or add parties in proceeding of suit so bare reading make it clear that application under order 1 rule 10 can be filed only in a suit proceeding and the same is so not maintainable in execution proceedings and by way of application under order 1 rule 10 CPC no new party can be implemented in execution proceeding. 

It is settled law that the executing court has jurisdiction only to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure laid down under order 21 CPC, hence, executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Thus, decree court is restricted to decree only and cannot reopen the case nor can decide any question relating to merit of the case while dealing with execution of decree. 

2. In Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 Supreme Court has held that a court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands. It has no power to entertain any objection as to the validity, legality or correctness of the decree. 

In S. Bhaskaran Vs. Sebastian 2019 SCC 161 Supreme Court has held that the executing court cannot travel beyond the scope of decree or order. Any order passed by the executing court by travelling beyond the decree or order is without jurisdiction. Thus, it is apparent that the Execution Court can hear and decide questions relating to execution of decree and cannot go behind the decree to decide upon merits of case.

Power of executing court to decide question arising in execution:-
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers wide powers on the executing Court to decide 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.

Such questions must be decided by the executing Court and no separate suit is maintainable for the
purpose. 

A purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree would also be a party to the suit in view of the amendments made in the explanation to this section by Act No.66 of 1956.

A decision under section 47 is deemed to be a decree, [vide section 2 (2)], and is, therefore, appealable as such. {If a third party claim(s) right(s) in the property subject matter of decree under execution by filing an application under Section 47 or Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Court is of the opinion that the application is frivolous, it shall record reasons while declining to issue notice thereof. The Court should also
refrain from entertaining such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.
The Court should in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A.}
{Rule 4 Amended vide C.S. No. 84 Rules/II.D4 dated 21.11.2022}.

The sole objective behind this provision is to provide a cheap and expeditious remedy for the determination of certain questions in executing proceedings without recourse to a separate suit and to prevent unnecessary litigation. The provision saves the time of the court and puts an end to litigation. Section 47 has been enacted to enable parties to obtain adjudication of questions relating to execution without any unnecessary expenses or delay which a fresh trial might entail.

Section 47 of the code is very wide as it gives exclusive jurisdiction to the executing court in respect of all matters relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree arising between the parties or their representatives. Simply it puts a bar for any further litigation relating to a matter for which a decree has been passed by the competent court and any type of question should be dealt by executing court during the executing proceeding.

There are two conditions that must be satisfied for applying Section 47 of the code:

1. Any question which is to be raised must be one arising between the parties to the suit in which decree is passed, or their legal representative.
2. The question raised must relate to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree.

This type of question will be determined by the executing court and it has the power to determine such questions during the execution proceeding.

Section 52" In a situation where the property which is in the possession of the judgement-debtor came in the hands of the legal representative and it has not been duly applied by him, the court will enforce the execution of the decree against him as if the decree was to the extent passed against him personally.

the General rule is that the plaintiff is master of his suit. He is dominus  litus. He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any  relief. It is discretionary to grant a relief under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., In exercising the direction the court will invariably take into  account the wishes of the plaintiff before adding a third person as a defendant to his suit. Keeping in view of the above discussed basic principles, where the court finds that addition of the new defendant is absolutely necessary to enable it to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties, will it add a person as a defendant even without the consent of the plaintiff.

Section 21 of Limitation Act provides that wherever on Institution of a suit a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regard him, be deemed to have been instituted when he is so made a party. However, if court is satisfied that omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to mistake made in good faith, it may direct that the suit as regards to such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date.

In Razia Begum Vs. Anwar Begum reported in AIR 1958 SC 886, the Hon’ble Apex court laid down the following broad principles:–

 “(1) That the question of addition of parties under R.10 of O.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in

other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in

S. 115 of the Code;

 (2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a

person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest asdistinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of

the litigation;

 (3) Where the subject-matter of a litigation, is a

declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better

position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the

controversy;

 (4) The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Ss.42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act;

 (5) In cases covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission;

 (6) The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the instant case, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come, and

in view of that consideration, the rule of ‘present interest’, as evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not

apply with full force; and

 (7) The rule laid down in S. 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata.” 

In  Mumbai International Airport vs., Regency

convention Centre reported in 2010 (5) ALD (SC) = AIR 2010 SC

3109 the Hon’ble Apex court gave some illustrations regarding

exercise of discretion for adding of parties as follows:-

 “ 1) If a plaintiff makes an application for impleading a person as a defendant on the ground that he is a necessary party, 

the court may implead him having regard to the provisions of Rules 9 and 10(2) of Order I.

 If the claim against such a person is barred by limitation, it may refuse to add him as a party and even dismiss the suit for nonjoinder of a necessary party.

 2) If the owner of a tenanted property enters into an agreement for sale of such property without physical possession, in a suit for specific performance by the purchaser, the tenant would

not be a necessary party. But if the suit for specific performance is filed with an additional prayer for delivery of physical possession from the tenant in possession, then the tenant will be a necessary

party in so far as the prayer for actual possession.

 3) If a person makes an application for being impleaded contending that he is a necessary party, and if the court finds that he is a necessary party, it can implead him. If the plaintiff opposes such impleadment, then instead of impleading such a party, who is found to be a necessary party, the court may proceed to dismiss the suit by holding that the applicant was a necessary party and in his

absence the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the suit.

 4) If an application is made by a plaintiff for impleading someone as a proper party, subject to limitation, bonfides etc., the court will normally implead him, if he is found to be a proper party.

On the other hand, if a non-party makes an application seeking impleadment as a proper party and court finds him to be a proper party, the court may direct his addition as a defendant; but if the

court finds that his addition will alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action, it may dismiss the application even if he is found to be a proper party, if it does not want to widen the

scope of the specific performance suit; or the court may direct such applicant to be impleaded as a proper party, either unconditionally

or subject to terms.“

Hope this helps 

1. Court shall have to first decide on the maintainability issue before further proceeding on the matter.

2. It is well settled proposition of law. 

In execution such question of law even if considered can be only upheld in limited grounds’. He can challenge decree he had rights and internet in the same and was not having knowledge of proceedings 

Dear client,  

Regarding your first question, the general principle is that the court must first determine the preliminary issue of law before considering the merits of the application. The court cannot consider the merits of the application until it has decided the question of law.

In terms of case law, the Supreme Court of India has held in various cases that when a preliminary issue of law arises, the court must first determine that issue before considering the merits of the application. For example, in the case of State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (AIR 1968 SC 647), the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of law must be determined before any other issue is taken up for consideration.

Similarly, the Bombay High Court has also held in various cases that when a preliminary issue of law arises, the court must first determine that issue before considering the merits of the application. For example, in the case of Mukesh M. Bhatia v. Govt. of Maharashtra (2006 (4) Bom CR 588), the Bombay High Court held that when a preliminary issue of law arises, the court must first determine that issue before considering the merits of the application.

In terms of your second question, I am unable to provide specific case law links without more specific information regarding the issue and the context of the case. It is recommended that you consult with a legal professional or conduct your own research to find relevant case law that pertains to your specific issue.