1. Execution of a decree for a mere declaration — recovery of money directed by executing court — absence of consequential relief in decree. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S.Verma : K.S.Paripoornan
State Of Punjab
Versus
Buta Singh
Case No. : of 1995
Date of Decision : 2/16/95
An executing court lacks the jurisdiction to grant consequential relief, such as the recovery of money, if the decree being executed is for a mere declaration and no such relief was specifically granted in the decree.
Headnote:(A) Execution of Decree - Decree for mere declaration - Recovery of money - Jurisdiction of executing court - Executing court has no jurisdiction to direct the recovery of any amount which was not granted by the decree under execution, especially where the decree is for a mere declaration and no consequential relief was claimed or granted. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A decree was passed for a mere declaration without any consequential relief being claimed or granted. During execution, the executing court directed the recovery of a certain amount calculated as consequential relief flowing from the declaratory relief. A revision against this order was dismissed in limine by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The executing court lacked jurisdiction to order the recovery of money not granted in the original decree. The High Court failed in its duty to correct this error of jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether an executing court can direct the recovery of money as consequential relief when the decree under execution is for a mere declaration and no such relief was granted in the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree; if the decree is for a mere declaration, the court cannot grant consequential relief during execution.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the executing court are set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
execution of decrees
- jurisdiction of executing court (Para 3)
-
execution of decrees
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the executing court's jurisdiction to grant recovery of money not awarded in a declaratory decree and the High Court's failure to address the issue. (Para 2 )
3. The executing court lacked jurisdiction to order recovery of amounts not granted in the decree, and the High Court failed to correct this jurisdictional error. (Para 3 )
4. An executing court cannot direct the recovery of any amount not granted by the decree under execution when the decree is for a mere declaration. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — orders of the High Court and executing court set aside. (Para 4 )
6. Can an executing court award monetary recovery in the execution of a decree for a mere declaration?
No, an executing court has no jurisdiction to direct the recovery of any amount that was not granted by the decree under execution if the decree was for a mere declaration. (Para 3 )
7. What is the responsibility of the High Court regarding jurisdictional errors made by an executing court?
It is the duty of the High Court to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the executing court. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) IN execution of a decree for a mere declaration, the executing court has directed recovery of some money from the appellant-State of Punjab. Although no consequential relief was claimed in the suit nor was it granted in the decree, yet the decree was put in execution and the executing court directed recovery of a certain amount calculated as the consequential relief flowing from the mere declaratory relief granted by the decree. The High court has dismissed the revision in limine without even adverting to this aspect. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3) IT is obvious that the executing court had no jurisdiction to direct the recovery of any amount which was not granted by the decree under execution since the decree was for a mere declaration. The order of the executing court being without jurisdiction, it was the duty of the High court to have corrected that error of jurisdiction. However, the High court has failed to do so.
(4) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the executing court are set aside.
(5) NO costs.
