SATYAWATI Vs RAJINDER SINGH
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,ANIL R. DAVE,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Case number: C.A. No.-004176-004176 / 2013
Diary number: 30370 / 2011
Advocates: R. C. KAUSHIK Vs
SANDEEP BHALLA
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4176 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP© No.29703 of 2011)
Satyawati …APPELLANT
VERSUS
Rajinder Singh and Anr. ....RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
AS PER ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in
execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed
that “…….the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has
obtained a Decree……”.
1
Page 2
3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and
still the decree holder faces the same problem which was
being faced in the past. We are concerned with the case of
the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal
No. 89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on
19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the
aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant-plaintiff is
not in a position to get fruits of his success.
4. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered in Civil
Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in favour of the appellant has become
final as it was not challenged before the High Court. In
pursuance of the decree drawn, the appellant made several
efforts to get the decree executed. His last effort, with which
we are concerned, had been initiated in 1996, when he had
2
Page 3
approached the court of Additional Senior Division, Palwal
with an Execution Petition for execution of the decree.
5. As the decree had already been made in favour of the
appellant, we need not go into the facts of the case, however
it will be worth noting that by virtue of the decree, the
appellant-plaintiff is entitled to possession of land
admeasuring 80 sq. yard forming part of land of Khasra
No.95/24/2 situated within municipal limits of Palwal town,
District Faridabad. When the Execution Petition was filed,
the Executing Court rejected the Execution Petition by
observing that the decree was not executable because of
certain contradictory reports. It is pertinent to note that the
judgment in favour of the appellant-plaintiff was delivered by
considering a report dated 17th September, 1989 and a sketch
of land in question, which were made by the local
commissioner and both are forming part of the record. It
appears that some other reports were considered by the
Executing Court and after considering all the reports, the
3
Page 4
Executing Court, by its order dated 16th March, 2009 came to
the conclusion that the decree was not executable.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order dated 16th March,
2009, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Civil
Revision No. 2047 of 2010. The said Revision application
was rejected by an order dated 25th May, 2011 and therefore,
the appellant-plaintiff has approached this court by way of
this Appeal.
7. While confirming the order of the Executing Court dated 16th
March, 2009, the High Court took into consideration the
subsequent demarcation report dated 26th July, 2010 and after
discussing both the reports came to the conclusion which had
been arrived at by the Executing Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-plaintiff as well as for the respondents.
9. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the High
Court was not right while confirming the order passed by the
Executing Court for the reason that the Executing Court had
4
Page 5
taken into account certain other reports for the purpose of
rejecting the execution proceedings and for coming to the
conclusion that the decree was not executable.
10. Looking to the facts of the case and upon hearing the learned
counsel, we are of the view that the order passed by the
Executing Court dated 16th March, 2009, which has been
confirmed by the High Court is not correct for the reason that
the Executing Court ought not to have considered other
factors and facts which were not forming part of the
judgment and the decree passed in favour of the appellant-
plaintiff. Once the decree was made in favour of the
appellant-plaintiff, in pursuance of the judgment dated 19th
January, 1996 delivered by the District Judge Faridabad, in
our opinion, the Executing Court should not have looked into
other reports which had been submitted to it afterwards.
11. Upon perusal of the reports, we find that the local
commissioner’s report clearly describes the land which
admeasures 80 sq. yard and which is forming part of Khasra
5
Page 6
No. 95/24/2 and the report given by the local commissioner
also gives details of the land in question by way of a sketch.
In our opinion, the Executing Court ought to have looked at
the sketch which was prepared by the local commissioner and
which was accepted as a correct sketch by the Appellate
Court while delivering the judgment dated 19th January,
1996, which has become final.
12. In our opinion, the view expressed by the Executing Court
and confirmed by the High Court is not correct and therefore,
we allow this appeal and quash and set aside the impugned
order of the High Court passed in C.R. No. 2047 of 2010
dated 25th May, 2011, confirming the order passed by the
Executing Court dated 16th March, 2009. We direct the
Executing Court to do the needful for execution of the decree
by taking into account the local commissioner’s report and
sketch prepared by him dated 17th September, 1989.
13. It is really agonizing to learn that the appellant- decree holder
is unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even today i.e. in
6
Page 7
2013 though the appellant- plaintiff had finally succeeded in
January, 1996. As stated hereinabove, the Privy Council in
the case of The General Manager of the Raj Durbhnga
under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar
Ramaput Sing had observed that the difficulties of a litigant
in India begin when he has obtained a Decree. Even in 1925,
while quoting the aforestated judgment of the Privy Council
in the case of Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India
Ltd., Lucknow [AIR 1925 Oudh 448], the Court was
constrained to observe that “Courts in India have to be
careful to see that process of the Court and law of procedure
are not abused by the judgment-debtors in such a way as to
make Courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who
have obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.”
14. In spite of the aforestated observation made in 1925, this
Court was again constrained to observe in Babu Lal vs. M/s.
Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 525] in para
29 that “Procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice
7
Page 8
and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree holder starts
in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by
him. The judgment debtor tries to thwart the execution by all
possible objections…...”
15. This Court, again in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (I)
Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr. [ (1999) 2 SCC 325]
was constrained to observe in para 4 of the said judgment that
“…..it appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of
the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the
other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the
respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the
suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that
proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the
other and on occasion, become highly technical accompanied
by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to
the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the
proceedings take undue advantage and person who is in
wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the
8
Page 9
cases by taking undue advantage of procedural
complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a
decree for possession of immovable property, its execution
takes long time…..”
16. Once again in the case of Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub
Karan Prasad Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna and Ors.
[ (2009) 9 SCC 689] at para 27 this Court observed as under :
“In the present system, when preliminary decree for partition
is passed, there is no guarantee that the plaintiff will see the
fruits of the decree. The proverbial observation by the Privy
Council is that the difficulties of a litigant begin when he
obtains a decree. It is necessary to remember that success in a
suit means nothing to a party unless he gets the relief.
Therefore, to be really meaningful and efficient, the scheme
of the Code should enable a party not only to get a decree
quickly, but also to get the relief quickly. This requires a
conceptual change regarding civil litigation, so that the
9
Page 10
emphasis is not only on disposal of suits, but also on securing
relief to the litigant.”
17. As stated by us hereinabove, the position has not been
improved till today. We strongly feel that there should not be
unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because if the decree
holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the
decree executed, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in
vain.
18.We are sure that the Executing Court will do the needful at an
early date so as to see that the long drawn litigation which was
decided in favour of the appellant is finally concluded and the
appellant-plaintiff gets effective justice.
19. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
………..........................................J (G.S. SINGHVI
………..........................................J
10
Page 11
(ANIL R. DAVE)
………..........................................J (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
New Delhi 29th April. 2013
11