The execution of decrees must prioritize timely compliance, and courts must ensure the rights of decree-holders are safeguarded against abuses by judgment debtors.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these petitions, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The respondents/decree-holders (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents’) are yet to enjoy the benefit of the decree that has been passed in their favour and the petitioners/judgment-debtors (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’) have made all attempts to frustrate the respondents to such an extent that they would lose interest in enjoying the fruits of the decree passed in their favour.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made certain pertinent observations regarding difficulties faced in execution of the decree in Griesheim GMBH (Now Called AIR Liquide Deutschland GMBH) vs. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited (2022) 11 SCC 549 wherein it was observed as under:

“2. It is an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. The evil was noticed as far back in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced by the decree holder in execution of the decree, General Manager, Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16(Moo IO p.612). After more than a century, there has been no improvement and still the decree holder faces the same problem what was being faced in the past. A litigant coming to Court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he primarily wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and if it is a money decree, he wants that money what he is entitled for in terms of the decree, must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible without fail keeping in view the reasonable restrictions/rights which are available to the judgment debtor under the provisions of the statute or the code, as the case may be.”

4. In Jini Dhanrajgir and another vs. Shibu Mathew and Anr. Etc. AIR 2023 SC 2567 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case where there was resistance on behalf of the judgment debtor to deliver the possession to the decree holder made the following pertinent observations:

“2. More than a century and a half back, the Privy Council (speaking through the Right Hon. Sir James Colville) in The General Manger of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605 lamented that the difficulties of litigants in India indeed begin when they have obtained a decree. A reference to the above observation is also found in the decision of the Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court in Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd. Lucknow AIR 1925 Oudh 448. It was ruled there that the Courts had to be careful to ensure that the process of the Court and the laws of procedure were not abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to make the courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who had obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.

3. Notwithstanding the enormous lapse of time, we are left awestruck at the observation of the Privy Council which seems to have proved prophetic. The observation still holds true in present times and this case is no different from cases of decree-holders’ woes commencing while they are in pursuit of enforcing valid and binding decrees passed by civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree- holders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not. In Martin Burn Ltd. vs. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1966 SC 529, this Court held that a court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.”

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and others AIR 2023 SC 5491 observed as under:

“2. A legal journey adopted by the appellant with per