Executing Court Can't Go Behind Decree, Aggrieved Party Must Seek Amendment Of Decree In Case Of Discrepancy With Judgment: Patna High Court

Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra observed, "In case of discrepancy between the judgment and the decree, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree, and the party aggrieved must seek amendment of the decree. The question of amendment would not arise if the decree was itself the adjudication. Section 152 C.P.C. provides for amendments in judgment confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes, but if there is mistake of substance, the remedy is by review of judgment."

The ruling came in response to a Civil Miscellaneous Application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order issued by the Execution Munsif of Patna in an Execution Case.

The case in question revolved around a property dispute where the petitioner initially filed a Title Suit to regain possession of a property. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit. Undeterred, the petitioner pursued a Title Appeal, which ultimately yielded a favorable judgment and decree, overturning the initial court's decision and granting possession of the property to the petitioner.

Subsequently, the petitioner initiated an Execution Case to enforce the decree. However, the judgment debtor, the respondent, raised a critical objection. The objection was based on the argument that the Appellate Court's decree lacked a proper description of the property, rendering the Execution Case legally unsustainable.

The main contention of the petitioner was that, in contrast to trial court decrees, appellate decrees need not contain property descriptions. The petitioner insisted that the Execution Case was valid despite this absence.

Conversely, the respondent contended that the omission of a property description in the appellate decree made it non-executable. They argued that the executing court cannot look beyond the original decree.

The Patna High Court, in its ruling, referenced Rule 106 of Civil Court Rules, highlighting that decrees should be self-sufficient and not rely on other documents for clarity. The Court made a clear distinction between judgments and decrees, noting that judgments provide the reasons for a decision, while decrees contain the orders issued by the court. Various sections of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were cited to support the argument that the identity of the property can be established using the trial court's decree, even in cases of ambiguity.

Emphasizing the importance of accurate execution of decrees, especially when discrepancies exist, the Court stated, “As is commonly known, the stream cannot rise aboveits source. The execution of decree is the last leg of the journey that a litigant is put through to obtain desired relief from theCourt.”

In light of the presented facts, the Court concluded that there was no discrepancy between the judgment and the decree in the present case.

Therefore, the impugned order issued by the Execution Munsif was set aside, and the Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Application was allowed.

Counsel For the Petitioner/s: Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kushagra Kush, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

Counsel For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 113

Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh vs Ram Sharan Prasad Singh

Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1309 Of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment