Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
NEW INDIA TIMBER STORE – Appellant
Versus
HSK INFRA PVT. LTD. & ORS. – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 322/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satvinder Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Yash Chopra
For the Respondents: Mayank Bhargava, Rajdeep Saraf
An executing court cannot go behind the decree or modify its terms to correct errors, as its jurisdiction is limited to executing the decree as passed. It cannot assume the role of an appellate court, particularly when the decree has attained finality.
Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of Section 47 and Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the execution of a money decree. The appellant filed a recovery suit against a company and its directors, resulting in a decree for Rs. 17,73,256/-. The Trial Court specifically decided that the directors were necessary parties, rejecting the plea of misjoinder. During execution, the directors sought review of an order attaching their property, arguing they were not personally liable for the company's contractual debts. The Executing Court allowed the review and held the directors not personally liable. The primary issue was whether the Executing Court could go beyond the terms of a final decree to exempt the directors from liability. The court reasoned that an executing court is duty-bound to execute the decree as passed and cannot assume the role of an appellate court to correct perceived errors in the original judgment, especially when the decree has attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondents. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Executing Court dated 31.07.2025 is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of recovery suit, decree against directors, and subsequent execution objections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments regarding director liability and the scope of the executing court's power. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. executing court cannot modify a final decree that has attained finality. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. executing court cannot assume appellate jurisdiction to correct errors in the decree. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. appeal allowed and impugned order set aside. (Para 30) |
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
(ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 31.07.2025 whereby the application for review of the order dated 28.05.2025 filed by the respondents no. 2 & 3 herein under Section 47 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) was allowed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-06, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (“Executing Court”) by holding in paragraph 24 as under:-
“24. Therefore, the application filed by JD No.2 and 3 under Section 47 read with Order XXI CPC is allowed and the order dated 28.05.2025 is recalled and it is held that JD No.2 and 3 are not personally liable for the decretal amount and the amount can be recovered by the DH only from JD No.l. Further, the order for attachment of property i.e. registered address of JD No.l company on the Master Data of the JD No.l Company i.e. E-158, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also liable to be reviewed and is recalled accordingly, more so in view of the copy of Sale Deed of the said property in the name of Late Ms. Kirpal Kaur Anand and the Surviving Member Certificate having been placed on record by Ms. Smita Anand who is the daughter and one of the legal heirs of the erstwhile owner of this property, Late Ms. Kirpal Kaur Anand and her name as well as names of JD No.2 and 3..”
2. By order dated 28.05.2025, the learned District Judge had rejected the objections filed by the respondents no. 2 & 3 against the execution petition filed by the appellant by stating as under:-
“Warrants of attachment remained unexecuted with report of having left the premises for 1st and 2nd address and at the 3rd address, JD did not allow execution and obstructed the same. However JD no. 2 and 3 have filed objections against the present execution petition under Section 47 read with Order XXI CPC. JD has also filed audited balancesheet of JD no. 1 for 2023-2024.
JD no. 2 and 3 have submitted in their objections that the registered office of JD is running from E-158, Kalkaji, New Delhi and the property is owned by Sh. Hanwant Singh Anand and the company has no right, title or interest on this property. The decree in question has been passed against all the JDs and the objection taken by JDs during trial was dealt by the court concerned by framing issue no. 4 to that regard. However, the issue was decided against the JD no. 2 and 3 who were defendant no. 2 and 3 before the concerned court which passed the decree and the judgment for which the execution petition has been filed. No ground is made out to allow the present application and it is dismissed more so because JD no. 1 is having its registered office at the said address. Warrants of attachment be issued against registered office of JD no. 1 company. DH to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 02.06.2025 and before this court on 09.06.2025. In the meantime JDs are at liberty to settle and pay the decretal amount to DH.”
3. The facts to be noted in this case are that the appellant herein had filed a suit against respondent no. 1/HSK Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondents no. 2 & 3, who are Directors of the said company. The suit was primarily filed by the appellant herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,79,648/- along with pendente lite and future interest. In the suit, the appellant had claimed itself to be a proprietorship concern dealing in all kinds of decorative veneers, plywood, bl
