Ss. 36, 38, 47 and Order XXI — Execution of decree — Bounden duty of executing court — Scope of enquiry — Executing Court cannot go behind decree — Reports or material not forming part of original adjudication cannot be relied upon to defeat decree.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Ss. 36, 38, 47 and Order XXI — Execution of decree — Bounden duty of executing court — Scope of enquiry — Executing Court cannot go behind decree — Reports or material not forming part of original adjudication cannot be relied upon to defeat decree.

Judgment and decree dated 19-01-1996 had become final. Execution filed in 1996 for possession of 80 sq. yards of land. Executing Court rejected execution holding decree not executable based on subsequent/contradictory reports. High Court affirmed. Supreme Court held both courts erred: execution court cannot examine fresh materials to defeat executable decree; must enforce decree as passed using commissioner’s report and sketch forming part of appellate judgment. Directions issued to execute decree expeditiously.

Civil Procedure — Delay in execution of decrees — Judicial admonition — Need for systemic reform.
Court invoked Privy Council observations (1872) and recorded continuing failure: decree-holders still suffer more after decree than before. Held, justice loses meaning if decree enforcement is delayed; courts must ensure execution is effective and not thwarted through procedural abuses.

Jurisdiction — Executing Court — Limited scope — Cannot re-adjudicate — Bound by decree.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Factual Structure

The appellant obtained a final decree in January 1996 for possession over 80 square yards of land forming part of Khasra No. 95/24/2. The decree rested on a commissioner’s report and sketch dated 17-09-1989, both forming integral parts of the judgment. Execution proceedings were instituted in 1996. The executing court rejected execution in 2009 by relying on subsequent conflicting reports, declaring the decree “inexecutable”. The High Court affirmed dismissal based on another demarcation report dated 26-07-2010. The Supreme Court overturned both orders.

Legal Findings

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the foundational principle of execution jurisprudence — that the executing court must faithfully implement the decree; it cannot re-open, review, alter, or defeat the decree by importing new facts. Reliance on reports not forming part of the decree amounts to sitting in appeal over the decree, which is impermissible under Order XXI CPC. Execution courts are not fact-review tribunals; their sole function is enforcement.

The Court examined the commissioner’s record used in trial and appellate adjudication and held it precisely identified land extent and boundary. This material bound execution and could not be superseded.

Doctrinal Statements

The judgment functions as a constitutional admonition within Indian civil process theory. The Court quoted the Privy Council (1872) and subsequent Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that execution delay remains the most corrosive flaw in Indian adjudication — turning decrees into illusions. The Court emphasised that judicial process should not enable fraud through procedural obstruction by judgment-debtors, and that rule of law collapses if decrees cannot be realised.

The Court directed expeditious execution and reminded courts that civil justice includes not only obtaining decree but securing relief — execution delay vitiates promise of law.