'It Takes Ages For Decree Holder To Realize Fruits Of Decree': Supreme Court Laments Delay In Execution

While remarking that it is a classic case where the execution proceedings themselves become a second round of litigation and it takes ages for the decree holder to realize the fruits of success of a decree with judgment debtors assisted innovatively, the Supreme Court recently dismissed a SLP assailing Delhi High Court's order.

The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh while directing the decree court to forthwith execute the decree said, "​​We are of the view that this is a classic case where the execution proceedings themselves become a second round of litigation and it takes ages for the decree holder to realize the fruits of success of a decree with judgment debtors assisted innovatively! We are not at all persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. The decree Court will forthwith execute the decree, not later than one month from today. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed."

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the protracted execution proceedings in two other cases as well recently :

Decree-Holder Faces Same Problem In Execution As In 19th Century;Difficulties Of Litigant Begin After Obtaining Decree : Supreme Court

'Fit Case To Be Included In Law School Syllabus' : Supreme Court On 5th Round Of Litigation Stalling Execution In 50 Yr Old Suit

Case Before Delhi High Court

The petitioners had approached the High Court assailing order dated March 3, 2021 passed by the Administrative Civil Judge (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in an Execution Petition the Court had issued warrants of possession qua the portion shown as point 'X' in the site plan with a further direction to the bailiff to break up the locks and doors and get the portion, illegally occupied by the petitioners (legal heirs of the judgment debtor/original defendant) behind the portion marked as 'X' in the site plan, vacated from the petitioners.

The issue before the High Court was whether the petitioners could continue to be in illegal occupation of the portions by raising constructions thereupon so as to frustrate the decree passed against them.

To adjudicate on the issue, the bench of Justice Amit Bansal while referring to the judgements in Ramesh Chand Sankla and Ors. Vs. Vikram Cement and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 58, Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 observed that,

"It emerges from the aforesaid judgments that powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and equitable and have to be exercised in the larger interest of justice. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no equity in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners are seeking to derive undue advantage from their own wrongful and illegal acts of unlawfully occupying portions of the property and raising unlawful construction thereupon so as to frustrate the execution of the decree. Such a litigant is not entitled to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

Case Title: Ajit Singh (Deceased) Thr. Lrs.& Ors. V. Padma Bhandari (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 949/2022

Coram: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh

Case Title: Senior Advocate(s) Gopal Subramanium, Nanju Ganpathy and Gopal Shankarnarayan, Advocate(s) Vivek Raja, Indrajeet Singh and T. Mahipal

Counsel For Respondents: Senior Advocate B.B. Gupta, Advocate(s)

Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Manjula Gandhi, S.K. Ganghi, Shivanshu Kumar and Yash Agarwal

Click Here To Read/Download Order