Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Govind Ram - Appellant
Vs.
Shakuntla Sharma And Others - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 140 of 2019
Decided On : 18-11-2019
Shrawan Dogra, Adv., Tejasvi Dogra, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between nullity and invalidity of a decree, and the specific grounds on which the validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings.
Headnote:
Delay in Execution of Decree - Civil Procedure Code - 1872, 1925, 1982, 1999, 2009, 2013 - The court discussed the delay in execution of decrees and emphasized the need for timely relief to decree holders. The court highlighted the abuse of legal procedures by judgment-debtors to thwart execution and the importance of securing relief to litigants. The judgments referenced underscored the need to prevent unreasonable delay in executing decrees to ensure the fruits of success for the decree holder.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 04.07.1993, seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and damages. The suit was partly decreed for specific performance of the agreement, and the decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed objections to the execution of the decree, arguing that the decree holder alone was not the sole owner of the land, and therefore, the decree could not be enforced.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the objection petition, emphasizing that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and is required to execute the decree as it is. The court held that the objections raised by the petitioner questioning the merits of the decree were not valid.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the decree and the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the ownership of the land and the execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the distinction between nullity and invalidity of a decree, emphasizing that only objections regarding the decree being a nullity in the true sense can be raised before the executing court. The court also highlighted that the validity of a decree can be challenged in the execution proceedings only on specific grounds, such as lack of inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it in limine, emphasizing that the petitioner cannot be permitted to gain undeserved and unfair advantage by dragging the litigation and preventing the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
It was way back in 1872 that the Privy Council while dealing with a case relating to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree observed that:
".... the difficulties of a litigant in India began many years when he has obtained a decree." (Refer: General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga vs. Coomar Ramaput Singh (1871- 72) 14 MIA 605: 20 ER 912).
2. It is really agonizing to note that the decree holders/ respondents are unable to enjoy the fruits of their success despite the decree having been passed in their favour way back on 31.12.2001.
3. Even in 1925, while quoting the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Privy Council, the OUDH High Court in Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India, Ltd.,1925 OUDH 448 , was constrained to observe that;
"Courts in India had to be careful to see that 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."
4. The afore-stated observations made in 1925 were echoed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Lal vs. M/s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others, (1982) 1 SCC 525 , and it was observed as under:-
"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....."
5. Again in Marshall sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 325 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was constrained to observe as under:-
"4........It appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and, on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes a long time........."
6. Once again in the matter of Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan vs. Sita Saran Bubna & others, (2009) 9 SCC 689, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"27. In the present system, when preliminary decree for partition is passed, there is no guarantee that the plaintiff will see the fruits of the decree. The proverbial observation by the Privy Council is that the difficulties of a litigant begin when he obtains a decree. It is necessary to remember that success in a suit means nothing to a party unless he gets the relief. Therefore, to be really meaningful and efficient, the scheme of the Code should enable a party not only to get a decree quickly, but also to get the relief quickly. This requires a conceptual change regarding civil litigation, so that the emphasis is not only on disposal of suits, but also on securing relief to the litigants."
7. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar & anr, (2003) 8 SCC 289, the Hon'ble observed as under:
"22........Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. This type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."
8. In Gayatri Devi & ors Vs. Shashi Pal
