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