IMPORTANT POINT
Executing Court is required to execute the decree as made and it had no jurisdiction to widen its scope or add to it unless specific question was raised relating to discharge or satisfaction of decree u/s 47 CPC.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 21 Rule 21 and Section 47—Execution—Executing Court had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree as passed—Respondent plaintiff appointed as Science Mistress in appellant school in grade of Rs.1400–2600/- plus allowances sanctioned by State Government—She filed suit for regularisation and other reliefs and suit was decreed—Execution was filed praying for recovery of Rs. 2,71,436/-, amount calculated towards her balance dues on account of salary on basis of Government Scale which was Rs. 1400/- – 2600/- as revised from time to time—Executing Court directed appellant to pay remaining arrears—Order was not given effect to and Court directed issue of non-bailable warrants—Revision against order was dismissed by High Court—Appeal—Decree did not indicate the basis on which dues of Respondent was to be calculated—As per decree respondent was entitled to regularisation of her services with other consequential relief—Executing Court had no jurisdiction to widen its scope unless a specific question was raised relating to discharge or satisfaction of decree—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : Having heard the Learned Counsel of the respected parties we are unable to agree with the reasoning both of the High Court as also the Executing Court since the decree does not indicate the basis on which the dues of the Respondent No. 1 was to be calculated. When there were conflicting claims regarding the salary payable to the Respondent No. 1, the said respondent ought to have taken steps to amend the prayers in the plaint so that proper relief could be provided to her. The same not having been done, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree as passed, despite the fact that the Trial Judge had noticed the dispute and had even decided the same.(Para 24)
       As will be evident from the decree extracted hereinabove, the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to regularization of her services with effect from 06.7.1988, with other consequential relief and was also entitled to receive her salary through crossed cheques. The Executing Court was required to execute the decree as made and it had no jurisdiction to widen its scope or to add to it unless a specific question was raised relating to discharge or satisfaction of the decree as envisaged in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 25)
       In our view, the Executing Court appears to have been misled by the application filed on behalf of the decree-holder Respondent No. 1 on 25.01.1999 indicating that her suit had been decreed by the Court with a direction upon the School authorities to make payment to her by cheque of her dues as per Government Scale (emphasis added).(Para 26)
       The words “as per Government scale” do not find place in the decree as passed by the Trial Court and this has resulted in the anomaly with which we are faced in these proceedings. The Executing court was required to act within the bounds of the decree and not travel beyond it or to widen its scope without invocation of the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(Para 27)
       Having regard to the above, we have no option but to allow the appeal filed by the School authorities. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but we also make it clear that the Respondent No. 1 may approach the Trial Court for amendment of the decree in accordance with law.(Para 28)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.—Leave granted.

2. The Respondent No. 1 in this appeal was appointed as Science Mistress in the Appellant School on 07.09.1988. At the time of joining her duties she was given an appointment letter on 05.7.1988 indicating that she was being appointed as Science Mistress in the school with effect from the date she joined her duties in the grade of Rs. 1400-2600/- plus usual allowances sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time.

3. On 28.01.1994 the Respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 49 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Jhajjar, inter alia, for the following reliefs -

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the regularization of her services w.e.f. 06.7.1988 with right of contribution to the contributory Provident Fund from the same date as also to receive her future salaries by crossed cheques and that she is entitled to all kinds of leaves and as admissible under the Rules ever since her appointment on 06.7.1988 along with decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deducting any money from her monthly emoluments on any ground except through due process of law. Any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted.”

4. The suit was duly contested by the appellant School by filing written statement and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to regularization of her service with effect from 06.7.1988 with right of contribution to the contributory Provident Fund? OPP.

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive salary by crossed cheque? OPP.

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to all kind of leaves admissible under service rules? OPP.

4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

6.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her own act and conduct? OPD.

7.Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court, if so what effect? OPD.

8.Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 36-A CPC? OPD.

9.Relief.

5. The suit was ultimately decreed in favour of Respondent No. 1 and the following decree was passed by the Learned Trial Court:

“It is ordered that suit of plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction is hereby decreed with cost by declaring that plaintiff is entitled to the regularization of her service w.e.f. 06.7.1988 with a right of contributory Provident Fund Scheme and also is entitled to receive the salary through crossed cheques and further defendants are hereby restrain from deducting any amount from her monthly emoluments on any ground except through due process of law.”

6. Since according to the Respondent No. 1 the appellant was not giving effect to the decree, she put the decree into execution by way of Execution Petition No. 18 of 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,71,436/-. In the execution petition the Respondent No. 1 stated as under:-

“That the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by the Hon’ble Court on 15.10.1998 and Hon’ble Court directed the defendants to make payment of decree holder by cheque and without deducting any amount as per Government Scale. The plaintiff has submitted the entire balance of amount due towards defendants on annexure “A” which is to be read as a part of the execution petition. The amount be recovered from the movable and immovable property of Respondents which is attached with the petition. Further action under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC be also initiated against Respondents No. 1 to 4 for not regularizing the service and not giving benefit of contributory Provident Fund Scheme to petitioner as per decree. The copy of judgment and decree are attached with the petition.”

7. As will be evident from the claim made by the Respondent No. 1, the amount calcu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 319

IMPORTANT POINTExecuting Court is required to execute the decree as made and it had no jurisdiction to widen its scope or add to it unless specific question was raised relating to discharge or satisfaction of decree u/s 47 CPC.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Executing Court is required to execute the decree as made and it had no jurisdiction to widen its scope or add to it unless specific question was raised relating to discharge or satisfaction of decree u/s 47 CPC.