LI Network
Published on: October 31, 2023 at 15:12 IST
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, emphasized that under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Executing Court can only consider questions related to the execution of a decree and cannot delve into matters that go behind the decree itself.
The Court expressed its concern regarding the prolonged delay in executing decrees, stating that litigants in India face difficulties once they obtain a decree, echoing a sentiment expressed by the Privy Council as far back as 1872.
Section 47 of the CPC stipulates that all questions between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, regarding the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, should be determined by the Court executing the decree.
The Court clarified that the questions within the jurisdiction of the executing court are confined to the “execution of the decree” and cannot extend beyond that.
It noted that the executing court cannot reexamine the validity of an order that allowed the execution of the decree, unless the order itself was without jurisdiction. The Court also highlighted that if a judgment debtor fails to raise objections at a preliminary stage of execution and allows the matter to proceed to the next stage, they cannot subsequently revert to earlier objections.
The Court expressed frustration over the substantial delay in executing decrees in civil cases, stating that this has been a longstanding concern for the judiciary. It referred to the directions issued in the Rahul S. Shah case of 2021, emphasizing the need for expeditious execution of decrees.
In the case before it, the Court criticized the unnecessary prolongation of proceedings, spanning nearly two decades, due to objections raised by the judgment debtors. It directed that the execution proceedings should proceed and be completed as expeditiously as possible, setting a timeframe of six months for this purpose.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that the Executing Court’s role is to oversee the execution process and address related questions, with no authority to review the merits of the original decree.
Case Details: Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa
