Judicial efficiency requires expedited execution of decrees through comprehensive asset disclosure by judgment debtors, enhancing public confidence in the justice system.

JUDGMENT(Oral)

1. Delays and difficulties in execution of decrees/awards erode public confidence and trust in justice delivery system. Execution jurisdiction deserves special attention and expeditious disposal considering that the decree-holder has already succeeded in the litigation and holds a decree/award in his favour.

2. In Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 491, the Supreme Court quoted the Privy Council`s judgment of 1872 that the `difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree' and observed that the position has not improved and the decree-holders face the same problem. The Supreme Court observed that if there is an unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because, the decree-holder would be unable to enjoy the fruits of his success and the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced as under:

...In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree-holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed [General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605: 20 ER 912] that: (MIA p. 612)

"...the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree.."

2. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree-holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past.....

xxx xxx xxx

12. It is really agonising to learn that the appellant-decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even today i.e. in 2013 though the appellant-plaintiff had finally succeeded in January 1996. As stated hereinabove, the Privy Council in General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605: 20 ER 912] had observed that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. Even in 1925, while quoting the aforestated judgment of the Privy Council in Kuer Jang Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India Ltd., [AIR 1925 Oudh 448 (PC)] the Court was constrained to observe that: (AIR p. 448)

"Courts in India have to be careful to see that the process of the Court and the law of procedure are not abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to make courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who have obtained decrees in accordance with their rights."

13. In spite of the aforestated observation made in 1925, this Court was again constrained to observe in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, [(1982) 1 SCC 525] in para 29 that: (SCC p. 539)

"29. Procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree-holder starts in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. The judgment-debtor tries to thwart the execution by all possible objections."

xxx xxx xxx

16....the position has not been improved till today. We strongly feel that there should not be unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because if the decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain."

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the execution of the decrees. Order XXI Rule 1(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the judgment debtor to directly pay the decretal amount to the decree-holder. Order XXI Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the option to the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal/award amount with the Executing Court and give the notice of deposit to the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in an ideal situation, the judgment debtor is supposed to satisfy the decree