Bombay HC: What procedure the Executing court should follow if conditional stay is granted by higher court?

 Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it becomes necessary to clarify the position so that such situations do not arise repeatedly. Whenever a superior Court grants stay to an award under the Land Acquisition Act subject to deposit of the awarded amount or any part thereof, the Executing Court shall insist upon satisfactory proof showing compliance of such condition. Mere statement that a stay order has been granted would not by itself be sufficient. The Executing Court must satisfy itself that the condition attached to the stay order has actually been complied with within the period prescribed by the superior Court. {Para 9}

10. If the judgment debtor, the State or the Acquiring Body fails to place proof showing compliance with the condition of deposit within the stipulated period, the Executing Court shall not postpone execution proceedings merely because a conditional stay order exists. In such circumstances, the Executing Court shall proceed further with execution in accordance with law. It shall also make all reasonable efforts to dispose of such proceedings expeditiously so that the claimants are not unnecessarily deprived of compensation already determined in their favour.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.2109 OF 2025

State of Maharashtra Vs Zubeda Fakir Mohammad 

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JUNE 9, 2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Purchasers pendente lite can not resist execution of a decree for specific performance of contract and possession on the ground that they were not joined in the conveyance or execution proceedings

 It was clear as day light that the rights of the Appellants who are subsequent purchasers were subservient to the rights of the decree holder. After the judgment and decree of the trial court and following execution of the sale deed by the Court Commissioner, a valid title qua the suit property passed on to Respondent No. 1 (decree holder). Admittedly in the present case, the transfer of the suit property was pendente lite. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was squarely applicable. All the courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the Appellants were fully aware of the pendency of the suit. However, even that is not necessary. As has been held by this Court in Silverline, the scope of adjudication is limited to the only question as to whether the objector who has resisted execution is a transferee pendente lite or not and if the finding is in the affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist. In so far the present case is concerned, the rights of the Appellants have been duly adjudicated under Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 Code of Civil Procedure to the complete satisfaction of the Executing Court. That being the position, there was no merit at all in the case projected by the Appellants and the Executing Court rightly passed the order.

(ii) The point of limitation was nowhere pleaded by the Appellants including before the High Court. In fact, no such substantial question of law was framed by the High Court. All throughout the proceedings, it was the case of the Appellants that they being subsequent purchasers, they ought to have been brought on record while executing the sale deed and also during execution proceeding. As already noted above, Appellants being transferee pendente lite, the doctrine of lis pendens applies with full force to them. That apart, Respondent No. 1 (decree holder) had sought for execution within a period of one year from the date of the judgment and decree of the trial court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. ... of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27660 of 2025).

Decided On: 12.01.2026

Alka Shrirang Chavan and Ors. Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2026 SCC Online SC 55, 2026 INSC 52,MANU/SC/0058/2026.

Print Page

Execution of decree and obstruction to its execution

 Execution is the process by which a decree-holder enforces a decree through the civil court. The law on execution is contained mainly in Sections 36 to 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the detailed procedure is laid down in Order 21of  CPC.

A decree may be executed by the court which passed it, or by the court to which it is transferred for execution under Section 38 CPC. The decree-holder initiates the process by filing an execution application under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 CPC, after which the court adopts the mode of execution permitted by law.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether executing court can examine validity of award of Lok Adalat and declare it as null and void?

 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Sections 21 and 22E — Challenge to Lok Adalat Award — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Held, the statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy - The validity of such an award cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating execution proceedings as a vehicle for setting it aside - The only recognized avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature - This applies equally to a party to the award and a third party affected by it. [Relied on State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660; Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480; Paras 8-14]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 97, 99, and 101 — Powers of Executing Court regarding Lok Adalat Awards — Held, while these provisions enable an Executing Court to address incidental questions during execution (such as the extent of enforceability against a person in possession), they do not authorize the court to examine the validity of the award itself or declare the decree based upon it void - The Executing Court has no authority to annul or set aside a decree that embodies a Lok Adalat award, nor can it sit in judgment over the validity of the compromise. Filing objections in execution cannot be treated as an "efficacious alternative remedy" that bars writ relief. [Paras 15-19]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

SLP (C) No. 27806 of 2023; 

DILIP MEHTA Vs RAKESH GUPTA & ORS.

Coram: VIKRAM NATH; J., SANDEEP MEHTA; J. 

Dated: NOVEMBER 18, 2025 

Print Page

Cross-Border Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decrees in India

 The globalization of commerce and increasing cross-border transactions have made the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments a critical aspect of India's legal framework. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides the primary mechanism through which Indian courts evaluate, recognize, and enforce judicial decisions rendered by foreign courts. This comprehensive system balances international judicial comity with the protection of Indian legal sovereignty and public policy.

Understanding the Foundation: Definitions and Scope

Print Page

What is limitation period for filing of execution of compromise decree of S 138 of N I Act case?

 Introduction

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) is a widely used legal provision to address the offence of dishonour of cheques. Often, parties involved in such cases opt for a compromise or settlement, which is recorded by the court. If the terms of the compromise are not fulfilled, the aggrieved party may seek execution of the compromise decree. Understanding the limitation period for filing such execution petitions is crucial for effective legal recourse.

What is a Compromise Decree in Section 138 NI Act Cases?

Print Page

How to Enforce a Decree of Injunction under Order XXI Rule 32(1) of the Civil Procedure Code?

 Enforcing a decree of injunction is a crucial aspect of civil litigation in India, ensuring that the rights of decree-holders are protected and that court orders are not rendered meaningless. Order XXI Rule 32(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) lays down the procedure and powers of the court in enforcing such decrees, whether they require a party to do or refrain from doing a particular act. This article explains the legal framework, procedure, and important judicial interpretations related to the enforcement of injunction decrees.

Understanding Injunction Decrees

An injunction decree can be:

Print Page

Allahabad HC: Revisional Court Can't Assume Jurisdiction To Reject O.21 R.97 Application When It Is Pending Before Executing Court

In the instant case the revisional court had assumed the jurisdiction of executing court and dismissed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, though observing that the issue of res judicata should have been decided first. The revisional court at the most could have remanded the matter with certain directions, it cannot assume the role of a executing court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, as the order dated 16.05.2024 does not fall in the category of case decided. {Para 33}

34. After giving thoughtful consideration, I find that the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 by the petitioner before the executing court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. However, the executing court has also failed in its endeavour to decide the execution case pending before it since the year 2014, and after framing the issue of res judicata had postponed the matter to be decided at the final stage.

35. In such a case where it is an admitted fact that the property was transferred during pendency of the suit and petitioner is a transferee pendente lite and hit by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the executing court should have, at the very outset, proceeded to pass the order in pursuance of Rule 102 CPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Matters Under Article 227 No. 11807 of 2024

Decided On: 11.03.2025

Santosh Awasthi Vs. Urmila Jain

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Citation:  MANU/UP/0397/2025,- 2025:AHC:35146.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can allow amendment of plaint during execution of decree and at appellate stage?

 Before we proceed to answer the question formulated by us in para 27, we deem it necessary to examine Section 22 of the 1963 Act. It reads thus:

“22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of

earnest money, etc.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the

contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of

1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a

contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an

appropriate case, ask for—

(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of

the property, in addition to such performance; or

(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including

the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made

by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is

refused.

(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)

shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically

claimed:

Provident that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.

 (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of subsection (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award

compensation under section 21.” {Para 54}

The term “proceeding” is a very wide and

comprehensive term and it includes execution proceeding

also. The expression “at any stage of the proceeding”

gives widest permission to the Court to allow amendment

at any stage of the proceeding including execution of the

decree. The amendment can be allowed even in an appeal

arising out of the order passed by the executing Court

rejecting the prayer for permission. The proviso

recognises the well settled position that the Court passing

a decree for specific performance retains control over the

subject matter as long as anything remains to be done in

the case.” {Para 9}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023

K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

Citation: 2025 INSC 617.

Dated: May 02, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is the duty of executing court while executing decree for specific performance of contract?

The executing court was not clear, both as regards the facts and as to law. On facts, it did not take into account, the real purport of the decree. The relevant portion has already been extracted. The stipulation of two months was for the first Respondent to execute the decree. That stipulation, no doubt, is coupled with the right to receive the balance of consideration. There was nothing on record to indicate that he ever made any effort to collect or demand the balance of consideration from the Petitioner, within that time. The plea of the Petitioner that when he offered the amount, the Respondents refused to receive; remained unrebutted. The first Respondent did not file any rejoinder to the counter-affidavit. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the executing court did not record any evidence of the parties. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court, in this behalf, cannot be sustained. When valuable rights accrued to a party, on account of the suit for specific performance being decreed, they cannot be taken away, on the basis of such an untenable finding.

{Para 17}

18. On the aspect of law, the executing court proceeded as though Section 28 of the Act gets attracted, though it did not mention in so many words. Firstly, the first Respondent himself did not invoke that provision. Secondly, the provision gets attracted only where, (a) the court, which passed the decree, directs the decree-holder to pay the purchaser money (balance of consideration) within a period, stipulated by it, and (b) the decree-holder failed to comply with the direction. It is then, and only then, that the court can consider the feasibility of directing rescission of contract. In the instant case, the time stipulated by the trial court in its decree was for the first Respondent to execute the decree, and not directly for the Petitioner to deposit the amount.

19. There is nothing on record to disclose that the first Respondent has ever made any effort to receive the amount, stipulated in the decree. On the other hand, the plea of the Petitioner that, when he offered to pay the amount, the first Respondent did not receive the same; remained unrebutted. The court must ensure strict compliance with the conditions stipulated in a provision, which has the effect of nullifying a decree. Even where two views are possible on the facts of the case, the one, which would sustain the decree, must be adopted.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 563-566 of 2025.

Decided On: 17.01.2025

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs. Baldev Singh (D) through His Lrs and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0079/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What conditions the Appellate court should impose while staying execution of money decree?

11. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co.   MANU/SC/0315/2005 : (2005)4SCC1 , wherein it was held:

6. Order XLI Rule 1(3) of the CPC provides that in an appeal against a decree for payment of amount the appellant shall, within the time permitted by the Appellate Court, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit. Under Order XLI Rule 5(5) a deposit or security, as abovesaid, is a condition precedent for an order by the Appellate Court staying the execution of the decree. A bare reading of the two provisions referred to hereinabove, shows a discretion having been conferred on the Appellate Court to direct either deposit of the amount disputed in the appeal or to permit such security in respect thereof being furnished as the Appellate Court may think fit. Needless to say that the discretion is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Ordinarily, execution of a money decree is not stayed inasmuch as satisfaction of money decree does not amount to irreparable injury and in the event of the appeal being allowed, the remedy of restitution is always available to the successful party. Still the power is there, of course, a discretionary power and is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 7410-7411 of 2008.

Decided On: 18.12.2008

Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jyoti Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: AIR 2009 SC 1581.

Print Page

What principles the appellate court should follow while deciding stay application in appeal preferred against money decree?

11. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co., [MANU/SC/0315/2005 : 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 672 : (2005)4 SCC 1], wherein it was held:-

"6. Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that in an appeal against a decree for payment of amount the appellant shall, within the time permitted by the Appellate Court, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit. Under Order 41 Rule 5(5) a deposit or security, as abovesaid, is a condition precedent for an order by the Appellate Court staying the execution of the decree. A bare reading of the two provisions referred to hereinabove, shows a discretion having been conferred on the Appellate Court to direct either deposit of the amount disputed in the appeal or to permit such security in respect thereof being furnished as the Appellate Court may think fit. Needless to say that the discretion is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Ordinarily, execution of a money decree is not stayed inasmuch as satisfaction of money decree does not amount to irreparable injury and in the event of the appeal being allowed, the remedy of restitution is always available to the successful party. Still the power is there, of course, a discretionary power and is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases."

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 5598 of 2023

Decided On: 09.01.2024

Sandeep Kumar Vs. Desh Raj and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

Citation:  MANU/PH/0526/2024.

Print Page

Whether a person can resist execution of decree saying that he is subsequent transferee if he is in possession of immovable property but sale deed is not executed in his favour?

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 sought to urge that the respondent No. 2 has been put in possession of the flat pursuant to the contract for sale deed 16-10-1990 by the respondent No. 1 and by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, he is entitled to the protection of his possession. The contention is only noted to be rejected. The appellant is a decree-holder in whose favour the decree for specific performance of the contract in respect of the said flat has been passed against respondent No. 1. He has levied execution of the said decree. Respondent No. 2 can successfully resist the execution of the decree only if he is able to establish his independent title over the property. Respondent No. 2 has not acquired any title nor is he a transferee within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 19. He cannot resist the decree passed In favour of the appellant on the ground that he was put In possession by respondent No. 1 under the Agreement for Sale dated 16-10-1990. As a matter of fact, the agreement dated 16-10-1990 in favour of the respondent no, 2 Is of no legal value as It is subsequent to the contract that respondent No. 1 had entered Into with the appellant and in respect of which a decree for specific performance has been passed In favour of the appellant.

{Para 17}

18. One more aspect needs to be noticed before I conclude. The purchase contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 19 must satisfy four conditions : (1) that the transfer is for value; (2) that the payment of full value has been made: (3) that the purchase was done in good faith: and (4) that the purchase including payment of money was without the notice of the original contract. The agreement dated 16-10-1990 under which the respondent No. 2 claims to have purchased the said property shows that the respondent No. 1 agreed to sell the said property to the respondent No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/-. 

19. The respondent No. 2 cannot be held that to be 'transferee'. He is only subsequent contractee. He has also not paid full value, lie is not covered by the exception carved out in Section 19(b).

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

First Appeal No. 5/1998

Decided On: 18.08.2005

Sujata Sanzgiry Vs. Ankush R. Naik and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Lodha, J.

Citation: 2005 AIR (Bombay) 404,2006(1) MHLJ 639, MANU/MH/0901/2005.

Print Page

Whether executing court can pass an order of attachment of Residential premises/home in execution of claim petition award?

Learned counsel seeks to contend that a procedure prescribed for enforcement of process against land must be understood as a procedure that causes an interdict against attachment through enforcement provided under the Civil Procedure Code. This argument, in my view, is fallacious. for there are no means by which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code could be incorporated in a procedure, which is independently prescribed under the Land Revenue Act. They operate in two distinct fields and certain special privileges which Civil Procedure Code provides for enforcement of decrees cannot be applied to enforcement of awards. The Motor Vehicles Act itself is a complete Code and the extent to which Civil Procedure Code provisions are applicable are brought through the Motor Vehicles Act itself. Such procedure and powers are set out under section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act. The references to civil and criminal procedures are available only in so far as taking of evidence on oath, enforcement of attendance of witnesses and compelling the party for production of documents. Power under section 174 is independent of any power to recover under the Civil Procedure Code itself by attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor. If the decree holder seeks to resort to attachment of the property enforcing the award as a decree of civil court, he shall be perfectly at liberty to do so but if the recovery of money is sought from any person under an award after securing a certificate for amount from the Collector then the procedure that the Collector will follow shall only be what is provided under the Land Revenue Act itself. {Para 2}

3. The issue of whether the exceptions provided under the Civil Procedure Code for properties that cannot be attached could be invoked in proceedings for recoveries under the Land Revenue Act has come for consideration before the Supreme Court itself in State of Punjab v. Dina Nath, 1986 RRR 490. The point which was directly at issue was whether an attachment and sale of property for recovery of revenue due to State was barred in respect of building used for residential purpose and whether the provisions of section 60(ccc) would be applicable was taken up and the court held that exemption was only for properties specified under the Act. The court held that Punjab Land Revenue Act was a complete Code providing for modes and machinery for recovery of arrears of revenue and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to attachment and sale in revenue recovery proceedings. The award which is passed by Tribunal, which obtains a status through a certificate issued by the Collector as land revenue payable, ought to therefore obtain a different treatment and the trappings of the Civil Procedure Code and limitations contained therein cannot, therefore, be attracted. This point was also subsequently decided under the Motor Vehicles Act itself by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Vorghese v. Sunny, 2009 ACJ 2704 (Kerala), where the court held that execution of award by Tribunal after issuance of a certificate to the land recovery authority cannot avail to a judgment-debtor to plead for the benefit of section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 2000 of 2012

Decided On: 04.02.2013

Prem Chand Vs. Akashdeep

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Kannan, J.

Citation:  MANU/PH/4481/2013,2014 ACJ 1467 (P&H).

Print Page

Kerala HC: Appellate court can only stay execution of decree and not stay the operation of the judgment

Going by the plain meaning of Order XLI Rule 5, it provides for only stay of the proceedings under a decree or stay of execution of the decree. The provision does not empower the appellate court to stay the operation of the judgment. Stay of operation of the judgment is not the same as staying the operation of the proceedings under a decree or staying the execution of a decree. An order staying the operation of the judgment will amount to staying the findings in the judgment, which cannot be done at the stage of admission.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (C) No. 963 of 2021

Decided On: 01.11.2021

Raveendran Vs. Lalitha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.G. Arun, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/2771/2021.

Print Page

Article on Recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce decrees in India

 Recognition of foreign divorce decrees in India is a complex legal issue that involves the interplay of private international law, Indian family law, and the concept of comity of nations.

Comity of Nations

Comity of nations is a principle of international law that requires courts to respect and give effect to the judgments and decrees of foreign courts, subject to certain conditions. This principle is based on mutual respect and cooperation between nations and aims to avoid legal conflicts and promote international harmony.

Print Page

Whether the court can stay execution of award passed under MV Act during pendency of application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal?

However, what the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court with respect, does not appear to have considered is what has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Ganpatrao Godsay Vs. Kachrulal Bastimal Samdariya and connected matters (supra) that if the word “shall” in sub-rule (3) is construed as mandatory the appeal may become infructuous as the decree may have been executed by then. The whole object of bringing in Rule 3-A was to ensure that the Courts do not admit appeals and postpone the consideration of the question of limitation beyond the stage of admission. The mischief was in the practice of the Courts granting interim stay of execution of decrees without admitting appeals and the consideration of limitation was left open until the appeals were finally disposed. The purpose was not to frustrate the right of appeal itself but to regulate it in such manner by evolving a procedure that the Courts consider condonation of delay before admission of appeals. Also what the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court did not consider that the reference in sub-rule (3) in Rule 3-A is to a proposed appeal and not to an appeal. {Para 33}

34. Although the Learned Counsel have referred to the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the interpretation of the word

“shall” in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3-A of Order XLI in the case of

State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr.(2000) 7SCC

372 , however, no decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation/construction of the word “shall” in subrule (3) of Rule 3-A of Order XLI contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Ganpatrao Godsay Vs. Kachrulal Bastimal Samdariya and connected matters (supra) has been brought to my notice. 

35. Ergo, considering the authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Ganpatrao Godsay Vs. Kachrulal Bastimal Samdariya and connected matters (supra) that the word “shall” used in sub-rule (3), of Rule 3-A in Order XLI of the CPC be construed as permissive and not mandatory in the absence of any decision to the contrary, I am bound by the same.

36. In this view of the matter, the applications for stay of the

impugned judgment and award passed under the MV Act in a

proposed First Appeal can be considered for ad-interim/interim

stay even if the condonation of delay application is pending.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2018(delay)

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited  V/s. Sou. Jyoti Vithoba Nahire and Anr 

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 21st September, 2023

Print Page

Notes on execution of decree for restitution of conjugal rights

 32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.—(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced 495[in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

33. Discretion of Court in executing decrees for restitution of conjugal rights.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Rule 32, the Court, either at the time of passing a decree 499[against a husband] for the restitution of conjugal rights or at any time afterwards, may order that the decree 500[shall be executed in the manner provided in this rule].

(2) Where the Court has made an order under sub-rule (1) 501[* * *], it may order that, in the event of the decree not being obeyed within such period as may be fixed in this behalf, the judgment-debtor shall make to the decree-holder such periodical payments as may be just, and, if it thinks fit, require that the judgment-debtor shall, to its satisfaction, secure to the decree-holder such periodical payments.

(3) The Court may from time to time vary or modify any order made under sub-rule (2) for the periodical payment of money, either by altering the times of payment or by increasing or diminishing the amount, or may temporarily suspend the same as to the whole or any part of the money so ordered to be paid, and again revive the same, either wholly or in part as it may think just.

(4) Any money ordered to be paid under this rule may be recovered as though it were payable under a decree for the payment of money.

Print Page

Whether award of Lok Adalat must have all the characters of a decree to make it executable?

The minimum details of the property agreed to be conveyed ought to have been reflected in the award, so as to make the award executable. The respondent would raise a contention that the agreement to convey half share of the property owned by him is on a condition that the appellant would stay with him in a rented house.

4. To execute an award, it must have all the characters of a decree to enforce it. If the award is blank and only refers to the obligation without referring to the nature of the obligation to be performed, it become in-executable. The award passed by the Lok Adalat is based on the agreement between the parties. The officers, presiding over such Lok Adalat must apply their mind while passing the award to ensure that such award is executable. They must refer to Order 20 Rules 6 (1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Code which refers to the contents of decree. Absolutely, no details are reflected in the award passed to execute the decree. In the absence of any details as referable above, the decree is in-executable. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

M.A. (Exe.) No. 7 of 2013

Decided On: 13.06.2023

Vijaya K. Vs.  Muraleedharan K.G.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A. Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas, JJ.

Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/1856/2023.

Print Page

Whether the court can dismiss execution proceeding the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher?

 In most recent judgment in “Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr. Vs.

Shibu Mathew & Anr.” (2023) SCC Online SC 643, the legal

position has been reiterated that Rules 97 to 103 of Order XXI

of the CPC provide the sole remedy both to the parties to a suit

as well as to a stranger to the decree put to execution.

{Para 14}

15. In view of the settled legal position, as noted (supra), it

was the duty of the Executing Court to issue warrant of

possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the

decree-holder in terms of suit schedule property and if any

resistance is offered by any stranger to the decree, the same

be adjudicated upon in accordance with Rules 97 to 101 of

Order XXI of the CPC. The Executing Court could not have

dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be

inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has

lost possession to a third party/encroacher. If this is allowed to

happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the

immoveable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over

possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder’s right

and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may

continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can

be executed.

 2023INSC764

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. ____________ OF 2023

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12601-12602 of 2017)

SMT. VED KUMARI Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Author: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Dated: AUGUST 24, 2023.

Print Page