In a significant legal case concerning the possession of a house, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment on the process of drawing a decree. The case involves a dispute between parties regarding the possession of a house, with one party failing to vacate as per the court order. The Court’s pronouncement provides clarity on the necessity of promptly drawing up a decree in such matters. Let’s delve into the details of this important ruling.
Facts
- The High Court granted liberty to the appellant to apply to the Trial Court under Section 152 of the Code for drawing up a decree in terms of the consent order dated 01.06.2012.
- The appellant felt aggrieved by this order of the High Court and filed the present appeal in this Court.
- The appellant obtained the consent order dated 01.06.2012 by concealing material facts from the respondent which was alleged to be in the nature of fraud.
- The Judgment debtor passed away leaving the present respondent as the legal representative.
- The Trial Court issued a warrant of possession against the respondent/Judgment debtor in respect of the suit house.
- The civil suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise agreement reached between the parties.
- Various applications were filed to challenge the executability of the consent order dated 01.06.2012.
- The respondent was under a legal obligation to vacate the suit house immediately but failed to do so.
- The appellant filed for police assistance to obtain possession of the suit house.
- The dispute arises from Civil Suit No. 369/2009 decided on 01.06.2012.
- The suit property was to be handed over to the plaintiff by 31.05.2016 as per the compromise agreement.
- The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the ADJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal.
- The Executing Court found no merit in the objections raised by the respondent and dismissed the applications.
- The Trial Court granted time to the respondent to vacate the suit house, which he failed to do on time.
- The Executing Court held that the respondent did not honor the orders of the Court by not vacating the suit house within the given time period.
- The Executing Court dismissed the respondent’s applications and Mr. Manomohan Kapur’s application, imposing a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on each of them.
- 50% of the cost was directed to be paid to the appellant and the remaining 50% to the Delhi Legal Services Authority.
- The respondent filed a first appeal before the Delhi High Court against the order of the Executing Court.
- The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Executing Court dated 22.10.2018.
- The High Court held that since the Trial Court did not draw up the formal decree after passing the consent order on 01.06.2012, the Execution Petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: High Court’s Order Upheld in Case of [Respondent] v. [Petitioner]
Arguments
- The High Court allowed the respondent’s appeal and held the Execution Petition by the appellant as not maintainable.
- The High Court stated that the formal decree was not drawn up by the Court after the order on 01.06.2012.
- After hearing counsels for both parties and perusing the case record, the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and reinstated the Trial Court’s decision with modifications.
- The High Court was deemed incorrect in its conclusion that the appellant had no right to file the Execution petition based on the consent order.
Also Read: Enhancement of Compensation Awarded in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Supreme Court’s Judgment
Analysis
- The High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court and dismissed the execution application as not maintainable.
- The language of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code does not allow passing an order as urged by the appellant’s senior counsel.
- The expression ‘and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith’ in Order 23 Rule 3 indicates the need for further passing a decree after recording a compromise.
- The order dated 01.06.2012 was not equivalent to a decree according to the clear language of Order 23 Rule 3.
- The High Court’s direction to apply under Section 152 of the Code for drawing a decree was not justified.
- The Executing Court was right in imposing a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the respondent for filing frivolous objections.
- The decree was considered to be in force by virtue of Order 20 Rule 6A(2) till the formal decree was passed, allowing the execution application to be entertained.
- All objections raised by the respondent were found to be frivolous and raised to avoid executing the compromise decree.
- The order under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code was not deemed executable like a decree.
- To draw a decree, the decree holder needed to file an application under Section 151 read with Order 20 Rule 6A of the Code.
- Section 152 of the Code allows for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders.
- The High Court did not assess whether the Executing Court was correct in rejecting the respondent’s applications.
- The decree must be drawn up expeditiously, within fifteen days of the judgment.
- The decree should reflect the judgment accurately, including the names and details of the parties, relief granted, costs incurred, and other determinations of the suit.
- In case of an appeal against the decree, a copy of the decree is not required to be filed separately.
- Applications for execution of the decree must be in writing, signed, and verified, providing specific details about the suit and decree.
- The Court may request a certified copy of the decree for execution purposes.
- The decree is dated on the day the judgment was pronounced, and the judge must sign it when satisfied with its alignment with the judgment.
- The decree application for execution must comply with the specified rules in Order 21 of the Code.
- The High Court was correct in directing the appellant to apply to the concerned Court for drawing up a decree.
- However, the High Court erred in directing the appellant to apply under Section 152 of the Code.
- A compensatory cost of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the respondent under Section 35-A of the Code.
- The High Court was incorrect in holding that the execution petition itself is not maintainable.
Also Read: Case on Constitutional Validity of Section 35AC with High Court Dismissal
Decision
- The appellant is granted one month’s time to vacate the suit house after completing procedural formalities and clearing all arrears of rent.
- The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and modifying the order of the Executing Court.
- Both parties are to be provided attested copies of the order, dasti, as requested, and bound by their statements.
- The execution petition filed by the appellant is deemed maintainable and rightly allowed by the Executing Court.
- The appellant is granted two weeks to apply for a decree in accordance with the order dated 01.06.2012.
- The Court is expected to pass and draw the decree promptly, within one week of the application by the appellant.
- No objections or disputes regarding the formal act of passing and drawing the decree are to be entertained.
- Once the decree is drawn and filed, the order of the Executing Court dated 22.10.2018 will be enforced against the appellant.
Case Title: SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD. Vs. SHASHI MOHAN KAPUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
Case Number: C.A. No.-005534-005534 / 2019
