Supreme Court: In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application

The SC on April 22, 2021 {RAHUL S SHAH vs. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI & ORS.} held that for execution of decrees, Executing Court must not go beyond the decree. It was however held that there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a re-trial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. It was held that experience has shown that various objections are filed before the Executing Court and the decree holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.

It was also held by the Bench, comprising of Justice S.A. BOBDE, Justice L. NAGESWARA RAO and Justice S. RAVINDRA BHAT that the delay caused in execution is anti-thesis to the scheme of Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must be decided in one and the same trial. 

It was held by the SC that CPC under Rules 30 to 36 of Order XXI provides for execution of various decrees, the modes of execution are common for all. Section 51 of CPC lists the methods of execution as by delivery of property; by attachment and sale; by arrest and detention in civil prison; by appointing a receiver or in any other manner as the nature of relief granted may require. Moreover, Order XL Rule 1 contemplates the appointment of the Receiver by the Court. In appropriate cases, it was held that the Receiver may be given possession, custody and/or management of the property immediately after the decree is passed. It was held that such expression will assist in protection and preservation of the property. It was held that this procedure within the framework of CPC can provide assistance to the Executing Court in delivery of the property in accordance with the decree.

It was held by the SC that as to the decree for the delivery of any immovable property, Order XXI Rule 35 provides that possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property.

It was held by the SC that while there may be genuine claims over the subject matter property, the Code also recognises that there might be frivolous or instigated claims to deprive the decree holder from availing the benefits of the decree. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI contemplates such situations and provides for penal consequences for resistance or obstruction occasioned without any just cause by the judgment debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by the transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceedings. It was however held that such acts of abuse of process of law are seldom brought to justice by sending the judgment debtor, or any other person acting on his behalf, to the civil prison.

It was also held that under Order XXI Rule 97, a decree holder can approach the court pointing out about the obstruction and require the court to pass an order to deal with the obstructionist for executing a decree for delivering the possession of the property, the obstructionist can also similarly raise objections by raising new issues which take considerable time for determination.

It was observed that it also becomes necessary for the Trial Court to determine what is the status of the property and when the possession is not disputed, who and in what part of the suit property is in possession other than the defendant. Thus, the Court may also take recourse to the following actions:

a) Issue commission under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC.

A determination through commission, upon the institution of a suit shall provide requisite assistance to the court to assess and evaluate to take necessary steps such as joining all affected parties as necessary parties to the suit. Before settlement of issues, the Court may appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of carrying out local investigation recording exact description and demarcation of the property including the nature and occupation of the property. In addition to this, the Court may also appoint a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 to secure the status of the property during the pendency of the suit or while passing a decree. 

b) Issue public notice specifying the suit property and inviting claims, if any, that any person who is in possession of the suit property or claims possession of the suit property or has any right, title or interest in the said property specifically stating that if the objections are not raised at this stage, no party shall be allowed to raise any objection in respect of any claim he/she may have subsequently.

c) Affix such notice on the said property.

d) Issue such notice specifying suit number etc. and the Court in which it is pending including details of the suit property and have the same published on the official website of the Court.

It was held that if the above suggested recourse is taken and subsequently if an objection is received in respect of “suit property” under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 of CPC at the stage of execution of the decree, the Executing Court shall deal with it after taking into account the fact that no such objection or claim was received during the pendency of the suit, especially in view of the public notice issued during trial. It was held that such claims under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 must be dealt strictly and be considered/entertained rarely.

In Ghan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar Sinha (AIR 1991 SC 2251), the Supreme Court had observed that the provisions of the Code as regards execution are of superior judicial quality than what is generally available under the other statutes and the Judge, being entrusted exclusively with administration of justice, is expected to do better. It was held that with pragmatic approach and judicial interpretations, the Court must not allow the judgment debtor or any person instigated or raising frivolous claim to delay the execution of the decree. For example, in suits relating to money claim, the Court, may on the application of the plaintiff or on its own motion using the inherent powers under Section 151, under the circumstances, direct the defendant to provide security before further progress of the suit. It was held that the consequences of non-compliance of any of these directions may be found in Order XVII Rule 3.

The SC held that there is urgent need to reduce delays in the execution proceedings as such the court deems it appropriate to issue few directions to do complete justice. It was held that these directions are in exercise of the court jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India in larger public interest to subserve the process of justice so as to bring to an end the unnecessary ordeal of litigation faced by parties awaiting fruits of decree and in larger perspective affecting the faith of the litigants in the process of law. It was directed by the SC that all Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below-mentioned directions:

• In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties.
• In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.
• After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.
• Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.
• The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.
• In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.
• In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.
• The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third-party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
• The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.
• The Court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A.
• Under section 60 of CPC the term “…in name of the judgment- debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.
• The Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay
• The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned Police Station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the same must be dealt stringently in accordance with law.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions by the SC.