RAJNESH OSWAL
Bashir Ahmed Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Bilal Ahmed – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J.—”As long back as in 1872 (when the CPC of 1859 was in operation), it was observed by the Privy Council that, “the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree”. The situation, we are afraid, is no better even today. These observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2023 in case titled “Pradeed Mehra v. Harijivan J. Mehta”, 2023 INSC 958. In the present case, the petitioner, who at the time of filing of this petition was 72 years of age (as mentioned in the petition), started his litigious journey in the year 1997 when he was 56 years of age but has not been able to taste the fruits of the decree earned by him in the year 2003 and upheld by the 1st Appellate Court as well as by this Court, till date when he has attained the age of 82 years.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of possession of one single storeyed shop situated at Village Thanamandi, which as per the case set up by the petitioner had been illegally occupied by the respondents. It was pleaded in the plaint by the petitioner that he had constructed a shop measuring 16 x11 on the part of the land measuring one marla compr
Satyawati vs. Rajinder Singh and Anr.
Ravinder Kaur vs. Ashok Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 289. (Para 7) – Relied.
Addissery Raghavan vs. Cheruvalath Krishnadasan
Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors.
Shafiqur Rehman Khan and Anr. vs. Smt. Mohd. Jahan Begum and Ors.
Executing Court cannot dismiss execution case on technical grounds.
The Executing Court must execute decrees as per their terms without questioning merits or introducing new factual disputes.
The executing court is bound to execute the decree as per its terms and cannot entertain frivolous objections that delay justice.
The executing court has jurisdiction to enforce decrees, including injunctions, and can act against violations by judgment debtors.
The executing court is bound by the decree's terms and cannot entertain objections that do not pertain to jurisdiction, even if the decree is allegedly erroneous.
Rule 35 of Order 21 deals with modes of executing a decree for possession of immovable properties.
Executing Court has authority to adjudicate all questions pertaining to right, title or interest in property arising between parties including claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession from im....
The executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must interpret the decree in a manner that gives true effect to it. It cannot draw a new decree and must strike a balance while giving....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.