LI Network
Published on: 13 September 2023 at 23:46 IST
The Patna High Court has addressed a crucial matter regarding the execution of decrees, emphasizing that when there is a discrepancy between the judgment and the decree, the executing court cannot question the decree’s content. Instead, any party aggrieved by such a discrepancy must seek an amendment of the decree.
The court’s ruling highlighted that the executing court should rely on the decree as it stands and cannot probe beyond it. While Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) permits amendments in judgment limited to clerical or arithmetical errors, substantial mistakes require a review of judgment.
The case revolved around a Civil Miscellaneous Application challenging an order issued by the Execution Munsif in Patna. The petitioner had initially filed a Title Suit for possession, which was dismissed, but later, on appeal, the petitioner’s suit was decreed. The issue in question pertained to the description of the disputed property in the decree.
Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra, citing legal precedents such as Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram and Meenakshi Saxena Vs. ECGC Ltd, reiterated that executing courts must adhere to the decree as it stands and cannot investigate its contents.
The petitioner’s primary argument was that the Execution Case remained valid despite the absence of property description in the appellate court’s decree. According to the petitioner, property description is a requirement only in the trial court’s decree, not the appellate decree.
The court referred to Rule 106 of CPC, emphasizing that decrees should be self-sufficient and not reliant on external documents. It clarified the distinction between judgments and decrees, with judgments providing the reasons for decisions and decrees containing the orders.
Various CPC rules and sections were cited to support the argument that the property’s identity could be established using the trial court’s decree. The court stressed the importance of accurate execution of decrees, especially when there is ambiguity.
The court concluded that the impugned order should be set aside, instructing the executing court to proceed with execution in accordance with the law. It affirmed that property description could be established using the trial court’s decree and allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Application.
The case title is Ram Kripal Singh v. Ram Sharan Prasad Singh.
