DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

B.A. LL.B. (INTEGRATED LAW DEGREE COURSE)

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (VI SEMESTER)

“PROJECT WORK”

“DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES”

SUBMISSION TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. DHEERAJ JHA RAJAT KAUSHIK

FACULTY OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 17RU11020

DESIGNATION: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SESSION:-2017-2022

SEMESTER:-VI

1|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express our humble gratitude and personal regards to MR. DHEERAJ
JHA for inspiring me and guiding me during the course of this project work and also for his
cooperation and guidance from time to time during the course of this project work on the topic
“DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES”.

Date of Submission: 20-05-2020

Name of Student: RAJAT KAUSHIK

2|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4

Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 4

Research Plan .................................................................................................................... 4

Research Question ............................................................................................................. 4

Method of Writing ............................................................................................................. 4

Sources of Data ................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5

Object ................................................................................................................................ 5

Delays and difficulties in execution of decree ........................................................................ 5

Requirement of documentary evidence to prove out-of-court payment of decretal amount . 5

Difficulties faced by the decree-holder in executing his decree by arrest and detention of the
judgment-debtor ................................................................................................................ 6

Statutorily imposed restrictions on the decree-holder regarding attachment of property for

the attachment of a decree. ................................................................................................. 7

Effect of amendment to S.47- Is it more beneficial to the decree holder in execution?...... 10

Stay of execution ............................................................................................................. 11

Stay of execution, pending the disposal of suit between Judgment-debtor and decree-
holder........................................................................................................................... 12

Grounds for challenging sale of property that has been sold in execution of the decree .... 12

Movable Property......................................................................................................... 12

Immovable property ..................................................................................................... 13

Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holders and auction-purchasers ................ 13

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 15

Refererences ....................................................................................................................... 16

3|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the assignment is to present a detailed study of the topic “DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES
IN EXECUTION OF DECREES” forming a concrete informative capsule of the same with an insight
into its relevance in the CIVIL LAWS in India.

RESEARCH PLAN

The researchers have followed Doctrinal method

RESEARCH QUESTION

Whether the Environmental Hazard is deteriorating the Environment?

METHOD OF WRITING

The researcher has used both a descriptive and analytical method of writing in order to
understand the issues better. The researcher has also relied on case law, to get an in depth
understanding of the subject. The method of writing followed in the course of this research
project is primarily analytical.

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher has used secondary sources in order to obtain sufficient data for this project,
namely,
 Online Research Portals
 Articles

4|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

INTRODUCTION
The expression 'execution' signifies the enforcement of decrees and orders by the process of court, so
as to enable the decree-holder to realize the fruits of the decree.' Section 51, C.P.C., defines the
jurisdiction and power of the court to enforce execution. It enumerates the different modes in which the
court may order execution of a decree according to the relief granted in favor of a decree-holder. It is
for the decree-holder to decide in which of the several modes he will execute his decree. A decree can
be enforced by delivery of any property specified in the decree, by attachment and sale, or by sale
without attachment or any property, by arrest and detention in civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or in
such manner as the nature of the relief may require. But execution is subject to the conditions and
limitations prescribed by the Code and the discretion of the court.1

OBJECT

This project will examine how some of these provisions of the Code have been used to cause delay, or
otherwise created difficulties, to the decree-holder in the execution process, and thus question the
feasibility of the inclusion of these provisions.

DELAYS AND DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREE

REQUIREMENT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE OUT-OF-COURT PAYMENT OF

DECRETAL AMOUNT

O21 R.2-A was added by the 1976 Amendment Act. It provides that in cases of out-of-court payment
to the decree-holder, towards part/whole satisfaction of the decree, there has to be documentary
evidence for the same. But this provision has been misused by the judgment-debtor, who can produce
forged documents before the court, to the effect that he has made much payment to the decree-holder.

Then the court has to look into the genuineness of the document and ascertain the veracity of the
judgment-debtor's assertions. This takes up a lot of time and delays the execution of the decree. But it
is necessary to have this rule because in case, the judgment-debtor has actually paid the decree-holder,
but the latter denies it, then the same can be proved by the production of documentary evidence, and
the judgment-debtor is not made to pay twice. Also it prevents judgment-debtors from randomly
approaching the courts and asserting that they have paid the decree amount outside court, because
without documentary evidence the court will now not consider their Claims.

1
Sreenath Roy v. Radhunath Mookerjee, (1882) 9 Cal 773; Ghosh v. Bana~ee, 79 Cal WN 76; State of Rajasthan
v. Savaksha, AIR 1972 Guj 179. Ibid. See Also, Umakanta v. Penwick & Co. Ltd., AIR 1953 Cal 717; Shyam
Singh v. Collector, District Hamirpur, 1993 Supp (I) SCC 693. Ibid, See Also, Anandi Lal, v. Ram Sarup, AIR
1936 All 495(FB); Ram Lochan v. Mahadeo Prasad, AIR 1970 All 544(FB).

5|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE DECREE-HOLDER IN EXECUTING HIS DECREE BY ARREST AND

DETENTION OF THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR

S.51 (c) of CPC empowers the court to order execution of a decree, by arrest and detention of the
judgment-holder in the civil prison. But there are various obstacles faced by the decree-holder, if he
desires to execute his decree, by virtue of arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. Some of these
have been enumerated below:

a) Requirement of affidavit and notice: In an application for the arrest and detention of
the judgment-debtor in prison, the decree-holder must state or must file an affidavit
stating the grounds on which arrest is sought for. Then the court will issue a notice to
the judgment debtor to show cause as to why he should not be arrested.
b) Insolvency: The court will not order arrest in cases where the judgment-debtor, on
being served notice to explain as to why he should not be arrested, appears in court and
proves to the court's satisfaction, that he has no property-movable or immovable, out of
which to pay the decree-holder. He has to then file an application to be declared an
insolvent and produce a copy of such an application before the executing court. It will
take time for the Insolvency Court to decide whether the judgment-debtor is actually
insolvent or not, but till then the execution proceedings will be stalled. If he is adjudged
to be an insolvent, then an Official Receiver will be appointed, to look into all the
liabilities of the insolvent.
c) Mere non-payment of decretal amount not enough to warrant arrest:
d) Special Exemptions: Further, the proviso to S.51, lays down that where the members
of legislative bodies2 or any person or class of persons, whose arrest, according to the
State Government might be attended with danger or inconvenience to the public.3 This
clearly restricts the decree-holder's right to get the decree executed by means of arrest
and detention, but special exemptions, similar to this one, have been provided to these
classes of persons in other enactments and codes also, by virtue of their special position
in society (like women, children), or the nature of their job (like legislators), or for
reasons of judicial expediency (like witnesses).
e) Premature release of arrested judgment-debtor: The judgement-holder may be
released by the court, or the government early on the ground of illness. 4 Thus premature

2
S.135-A
3
S.55(2)
4
S.59

6|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

release of the judgement-debtor on account of illness, would interfere in the execution

of the decree also. But it has to be understood that the provisions of S.59 are based on
purely humanitarian grounds, and cannot be dispensed with.

STATUTORILY IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON THE DECREE-HOLDER REGARDING ATTACHMENT

OF PROPERTY FOR THE ATTACHMENT OF A DECREE.

One of the modes by which execution of decree takes place is by the attachment of property, before its
sale, but this is subject to S.60 of the Code.

a) Properties exempt from attachment: S.60 declares what properties are liable to
attachment and sale in execution of a decree, and what properties are exempt there from.
The proviso to S.60(1) gives a list of properties which are exempt from attachment and
sale in the execution of a decree and the list includes: necessary wearing apparel,
cooking vessels, bedding, tools of artisans, implements of husbandry, houses of
agriculturists, wages, salaries, pensions and gratuities, compulsory deposits, right to
future maintenance, etc.5
By the 1976 Amendment Act, it has been. clarified that any agreement to waive the
benefit of any exemption under S.60 shall be void. 6 S.61 empowers the state
government to exempt agricultural produce from attachment or sale.
b) Salary: With specific reference to salary, S 60(1) proviso (i) provides that salary shall
not be liable to attachment and sale to the extent of the first four hundred rupees and
two-thirds of the remainder in execution of a decree, other than a decree for
maintenance (in case of execution of a decree for maintenance, only one third of the
salary shall not be liable to attachment).
Further, where the attachable portion of the salary has been under attachment for a
period of 24 months, either continuously, or intermittently, such portion shall be exempt
from attachment, until the expiry of a further period of 12 months. If such attachment
has been made for a period of 24 months for the execution of the same decree, then
after 24 months, the salary shall be finally exempt from attachment for that decree.
Where more than one decree-holders have asked for attachment of the salary of the

5
Proviso to S.60(1)
6
1976 Amendment Act

7|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

same judgement-debtor, it is for the disbursing officer to determine what portion of the
salary is attachable and inform the court of the same, and pay accordingly.
The reasons for these items, including a portion of the salary of the judgement-debtor
to be exempt from attachment is evident. It is to ensure that he is not denied of his
means of subsistence and of the items, necessary for his daily existence.
c) Inventory of movable property to be attached required: 7 Under O.21, R.( 12) of the
Code, when the decree-holder makes an application for attachment of movable property
belonging to the judgment-debtor, but not in his possession, he has to also annex with
the application, an inventory of the property to be attached, containing a reasonably
accurate description of the property. It is been held that the provisions of this rule are
mandatory and require strict adherence. 8
Where a decree-holder fails to annex to the application for execution of the decree, such
an inventory of the property to be attached, with a reasonably accurate description of
the property to be attached, the application is not one in accordance with law.9 Further
it has been held by the court that there is no obligation on the judgement-debtor to post
the decree-holder with all the details of his properties. It is the decree-holder's business
to gather knowledge about the properties so that he can realise the fruits of his decree.10
d) Description of immovable property to be attached required: 11 O.21, R.13 requires
that where an application is made for the attachment of any immovable property of the
judgement-debtor, it should contain an accurate description of such property including
its boundaries or numbers and the interest or share of the judgement-debtor in this
property. The provisions of this rule are also mandatory, but a defect in the application
can be rectified, by way of an amendment under O.6, R.17, CPC.
O.21, Rr.12 and 13 seem to impose too harsh a burden on the decree-holder, in
expecting him to find out all the necessary details of the property to be attached, though
he can make changes, by way of amendment in his application for attachment. This is
one of the provisions, which can probably be amended to make it more conducive to
the interests of the decree-holder.
e) Objections or claims to attachment: Where a property has been attached in execution
of a decree, there may be objections to such attachment either by a party or his

7
O.21, R.( 12)
8
AIR 1985 Ker 81
9
AIR 1915 All. 320
10
AIR 1951 SC 16
11
O.21, R.13

8|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

representative or by a third party. Adjudication of claims or objections to attachment 12

deals with adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of property. The
proviso to R.58(1) enacts that the court shall not entertain the objection or claim where
(1) before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already
been sold, or (2) where the court considers that the claim or objection was designedly
or unnecessarily delayed.
In both these cases, the order refusing to entertain objection or claim is subject to suit.13
Where the court entertains a claim or objection, it must investigate fully and not
summarily and must adjudicate upon all questions, including the questions of right, title
and interest in the property under attachment. The court shall, in accordance with such
determination,
i. allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either
wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit;
ii. disallow the claim or objection;
iii. continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in
favour of any person;
iv. pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit. 14

Thus, clearly the procedure has been laid down for how and when the court is to adjudicate
upon a claim to, or objection to attachment of property. The proviso to 0.21, R. 58 clearly states
no such claim or objection shall be entertained by the court in cases where the court considers
it to be designedly, or unnecessarily delayed, or it is made after the property attached has
already been sold. This would give the impression that the court is trying to avoid delay and
harassment to the decree holder. But if this is the object of the proviso, then it is largely defeated
by the following two things:

I. an order refusing to entertain such a claim or objection is subject to suit. 21 .15an

order passed by the court after adjudicating upon the claim or objection, is
appealable, like a decree.
II. This would greatly delay the execution process. By virtue of the 1976
amendment to S.47 of the Code, all orders made therein are no longer
appealable, and the only remedy available now is to file a revision petition

12
021, R.58
13
R. 58(5)
14
R. 58 (3)
15
0.21, R.58(5).

9|P a ge
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

against those orders. This rule is an exception to S.47, in so far as it provides

for appeals and instituting of fresh suits, in the manner provided above, and is
greatly misused by judgement-debtors to delay proceedings. But whether S.47
itself, which dispenses with the provisions for appeals is more beneficial to the
decree-holder or not, is the next question.

EFFECT OF AMENDMENT TO S.47- IS IT MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE DECREE HOLDER IN

EXECUTION?

S.47 lays clown the principle that matters relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree
arising between the parties including a purchaser of a share in execution should be determined in
execution proceedings and not by a separate suit. In order for S.47 to apply, the following conditions
must be met:

(1) the question must be one arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree has been passed,
or their representatives; and

(2) It must relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

Where a third party has any objection to the attachment of property, after the Amendment Act of 1976,
all the questions, including the question of title shall be decided by the executing court in the execution
court and not by separate suit.16 Before the 1976 Amendment Act, which deleted S.47 from S.2(2), the
order passed by the executing court shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as
to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. 17

But now the order passed under S.47 is not a deemed decree, hence it is not appealable under S.96(first
appeal) and S.100 (second appeal). Thus, the only recourse available to the party aggrieved of the order,
passes by the executing court under S.47 is to prefer a revision application under S.115, CPC, provided
the conditions laid down in S.115 are satisfied. We need to examine whether this amendment has been
beneficial to the decree-holder or not.

For this firstly, a perusal of the legislative intent behind the amendment of S.47 has to be undertaken.
The Object and Reasons, clearly states that S.47(as it stood before the amendment in 1976), was mainly
responsible for the delay in the execution of decrees, and the Joint Committee therefore, recommended
to omit the determination of a question under S.47, from the definition of a decree under S.2(2)18. The

16
0.21, R.58(1 )&(2)
17
0.21, R.58(4).
18
The committee note that “according to the definition of the expresssion 'decree' given in the Code, the
determination of any question under S.47 merits to a decree, and as such, an appeal and second appeal would lie
against such determination. The Committee is of the view that this provision of the Code is responsible for the

10 | P a g e
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

result is that all questions between the parties to the suit, in which the decree has been passed and their
representatives should be disposed of under S.47 and not by a separate suit, and the determination of
all such questions under S.47 will no longer be appealable as a decree. But wherever any order is
intended to be appealable as a decree, a specific provision is made to that effect in the Code itself, like
under 0.21, Rr.43-s(2)(c), 46-B, 46-C, 46-E, 46-H, 98, 100, 103.

Thus it is evident that the legislative intent was to dispense with the provision for appeals to these orders
passed under S.47, so as to avoid delay, so that the decree-holder could realise the fruits of his decree
quickly. Before the amendment, the judgement-debtor used to delay execution endlessly, by filing for
appeals. Now, only revision can be preferred under the limited grounds provided under s.115. But
though this amendment sought to make S.47 more beneficial to the decree-holder and to expedite
execution of the decree, it has also had its pitfalls for the decree-holder. He himself is also bound by the
provisions of S.47 and cannot prefer an appeal, when the order is against his interests.

ILLUSTRATION: Suppose A is the judgement-debtor, who contends that he has paid the decree
amount outside court to the decree-holder. As proof, he submits some forged documents. But the
executing court fails to notice that these documents are forged and adjudges that the decree-holder has
been paid outside court. Now, B, after the amendment to S.47 cannot prefer an appeal to this order of
the executing court. The only recourse open to him is to file a revision petition under S.115. But in
revision, the court will not go into appreciation of evidence, so in effect, B will be left with no relief.
Thus, though the amendment was to dispense with appeals under S.47, to save the decree-holder the
harassment of undue delay, in execution of his decree, the provision has been used by dishonest
judgement-debtors to forge documents and to deny the decree-holder of execution itself.

STAY OF EXECUTION

Under 0.21, R.26, CPC, the executing court can stay execution only for a reasonable time and only for
particular purposes, so as to enable the judgment-debtor to approach the court which passed the decree
and to:

i. get the decree amended

ii. show that the decree is satisfied or is not existing
iii. get the decree passed against him on the ground that it was obtained by fraud
iv. show that the decree is barred by limitation

delay in the execuuon of the decrees. The Committee, therefore felt that the definition of the term 'decree' should
be amended so that the determination of the question under S.47 may not amount to a decree,"

11 | P a g e
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

STAY OF EXECUTION, PENDING THE DISPOSAL OF SUIT BETWEEN JUDGMENT-DEBTOR AND

DECREE-HOLDER

1. Rule 29, 0.21 provides for stay of execution, pending disposal of suit between judgement-debtor and
decree-holder. For this rule to apply, there must be two simultaneous proceedings in court:

(a) a proceeding in execution of the decree at the instance of the decree-holder against the judgement-
debtor and, a suit at the instance of the judgement-debtor against the decree-holder.19

The provisions of Rule 29 are not mandatory, but discretionary;20 The discretion, however must be
exercised judicially, and in the interests of justice, and not mechanically and as a matter of course. 21 It
cannot be exercised so as to allow a party to abuse the process of law. 22

The essence of this provision is expressed very, accurately in the words of Mitra, J., in the case of
Judhisthir v. Surendra23 :

"the fundamental consideration is that the decree has been obtained by a party and he should not be
deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good reasons. Until that decree is set aside, it stands
good and it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that another suit to set aside the decree
might succeed----- the decree must be allowed to be executed, and unless an extraordinary case is made
out, no stay should be granted. Even if stay is granted, it must be on suitable terms so that the earlier
decree is not stifled."24

The reasoning stems from the principle that a judgement-debtor may not be harassed, or deprived of the
fruits of the decree, merely because a suit has been subsequently been filed for setting aside that decree.

GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING SALE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN SOLD IN EXECUTION OF
THE DECREE

MOVABLE PROPERTY
To challenge sale of movable property the applicant has to approach the court under 0.21, R.78, and for
immovable property, under 0.21, r.90, C.P.C. Under both these rules, he has to prove two things:

19
Shaukat Hussain v. Bhuneshwari Devi, AIR 1973 SC 528; Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1982 SC,686;
Hansraj v. Satnarain, AIR 1957 Raj 219; Subhash Kumar v. Sheo Balak, AIR 1975 Pat 307.
20
Anop Chand v, Hirachand, AIR 1962 Raj. 223; Quazi Rahman v. Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39.
21
Quazi Rahman v . Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39; Quazi Rehman iv. Sital Prasad, AIR 1977 Gau 2
22
Quazi Rahman v Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39;
23
Judhisthir v. Surendra, AIR 1969 On 233.
24
Ibid at 234. See Also, Quazi Rahman v. Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39; Quazi Rehman iv. Sital Prasad, AIR
1977 Gau 25.

12 | P a g e
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

(1) there was irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of movable property, and
(2) injury was vas caused by virtue of this irregularity to particular person by any other
person

If these two conditions are satisfied under 0.21, R.78, then the sale of movable property does not get
vitiated. But the person aggrieved can institute a suit against the person responsible for such irregularity
and injury to him, for the recovery of the specific property (if that person is the purchaser), or
alternatively, for compensation.

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
In the case of immovable property, if the above two conditions are satisfied under 0.21, R.90, then the
person aggrieved can file an application before the executing court, to get such sale set aside.

Though these provisions call for interference in execution, they rightfully do so. The burden is very
high on the person challenging the sale, to not only prove irregularity or fraud in publishing or
conducting the sale, but also to prove injury to himself by virtue of such fraud or irregularity. Further,
the sale can be set aside only in such cases where the property is immovable. But for movable property
where the entire sum has already been paid and no further confirmation to the sale is required, to avoid
any hardship to the auction-purchaser, it has been stated that such sale will not be vitiated. The purpose
of these provisions is basically to prevent any hardship to the judcernent-debtor, where there has clearly
been irregularity or fraud in matters of sale, thus affecting him prejudicially. For example, where there
is connivance between the decree-holder, the sale officer and the auction purchaser to sell the property
off at a low price, these provisions provide redressal to the judgement-debtor. But these provisions have
been misused by the judgement-debtors, to unnecessarily delay matters and harass the decree-holder,
by filing applications under these rules, without any basis.

RESISTANCE TO DELIVERY OF POSSESSION TO DECREE-HOLDERS AND AUCTION-PURCHASERS

S.74 and Rules 97-103 of 0.21 deal with resistance to delivery of possession to decree holders and
auction-purchasers. Under R.97, where the decree-holder or auction-purchaser of immovable property
is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of such property, he may make an
application to the court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. Under R.99, any person other
than the Judgement-debtor, if dispossessed by the decree-holder or auction-purchaser, may make an
application to the court complaining of such dispossession. The court shall on application under R.97
or R.99, proceed to adjudicate upon it as per R.101. The court will hold full-fledged inquiry, and not
just a summary inquiry and determine upon all questions, including the questions of right, title and
interest in the property under attachment.

13 | P a g e
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

Accordingly, the court shall either:

(a) order the auction-purchaser or decree-holder to be put in possession where it is satisfied

that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause, by the
Judgement-debtor, or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf or by any
transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or the
execution proceeding.
(b) if the applicant is resisted or obstructed even thereafter in obtaining possession, the
court may at the instance of the applicant order the obstructers to be detained in prison
upto 30 days.
(c) order the dispossessed person to be put back into possession pass such order as in the
circumstances of the case it deems fit.

These rules discussed above, represent the last stage at which the court can interfere in matters
concerning execution. Strictly speaking, execution has already been ordered, but these rules provide
resort to the aggrieved parties, for problems arising after execution has been ordered.

If we look at the case law of the Supreme Court also regarding interference in execution of civil process,
we find that the court is reluctant to interfere in matters decided by the executing Court The places the
court has interfered is:

(a) where the lower courts have wrongly interfered and to set "aside their orders;

(b) where the executing court has looked into matters which it is not supposed to, like legality of
the decree, or limitation period etc.,

(c) where non-interference would result in gross injustice to one of the parties.

14 | P a g e
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

CONCLUSION
Thus, after an examination of various provisions relating to execution of the decree, which depose
problems to the decree-holder, it is the author's opinion that despite these difficulties, the legislative
wisdom in incorporating these provisions is justified. The legislative intent behind the various
provisions examined seems to be, to strike a balance between the rights of the judgement-debtor and
the decree-holder, mainly:

 the right of the decree-holder to get the fruits of his decree,

 to realise the contractual obligations owed to him; and
 the right of the judgement-debtor to reasonable and fair procedure under Art.14, of the
Constitution and a guarantee of certain safeguards.

These provisions are mostly there to safeguard the interests of honest judgement-debtors. The problems
are not being posed by these provisions to the decree-holders, but by the misuse of these provisions, by
dishonest judgement-debtors. If we dispense with these provisions it will be unjust to the honest
judgement-debtors, and may, also be detrimental to the decree-holder.

For example, the 1976 amendment to S.47 was made with the object of preventing delay, by dispensing
with appeals to orders passed therein, and thus, expediting the execution process. But as has been seen
above, this too has its pitfalls, because it denies the decree-holder also the forum of appeal, in cases
where the revisional proceedings are unable to address grievances of the decree-holder, which could
have been properly handled in an appeal, like appreciation of evidence.

Further, there are some provisions, which are there for the benefit of both decree-holder and judgement-
debtor, like resorting to the court when there is resistance to, or obstruction in possession of property
by decree-holder or auction-purchaser. Thus, just because these provisions are open to abuse, that by
itself, is not rationale enough to warrant the deletion of these provisions from the Code and deny the
judgement-debtors, as a class of the benefit and protection of these provisions.

15 | P a g e
 DELAYS & DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTION OF DECREES

REFERERENCES

Books referred

 Thakker, C.K, (Takwani) Civil Procedure Code, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Company, Kolkata, 2006
 Halsbury’s Law of India, Vol.7, Civil Procedure, Butterworths Lexis Nexis, New Delhi 2002.
 Pollock & Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure, 13th edition by P.M. Bakshi, Butterworths India,
New Delhi 2000.

Statutory compilation

 Civil Procedure Code Act, 1908.

Internet Sites

 http://www.manupatra.com
 http://www.indiankanoon.org
 http://www.law.umkc.eduvotes.com
 http://www.judic.nic.in
 http://www.courtnic.nic.in
 http://www.lawmin.nic.in

16 | P a g e