CORPORATE|INDIVIDUAL

Decree Holders Entitled To Enjoy Fruits Of The Decree


Decree Holders Entitled To Enjoy Fruits Of The Decree
Expeditiously: Says Supreme Court

In Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and Anr. on 29 April 2013, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, has observed that Decree Holders must enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained by them in an expeditious manner. Justice Dave of Supreme Court of India has noted the dishonest strategies used by Judgment Debtors to escape the procedure of law and ultimately frustrate the entire efforts of a Decree Holder in getting the decree executed.

The court stated that even in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree-holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. They were concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January 1996. The decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till 2013, the appellant- plaintiff was not in a position to get fruits of his success. 

The court was of the view that it was really agonizing to learn that the appellant- decree-holder was unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even in 2013 though the appellant- plaintiff had finally succeeded in January 1996. The Privy Council in the case of The General Manager of the Raj Durbhnga under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing had observed that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree. In 1925, while citing the aforementioned judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd., Lucknow, the Court was constrained to observe that 

The Courts in India have to be careful to see that process of the Court and law of procedure are not abused by the judgment-debtors in such a way as to make the Courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who have obtained degrees in accordance with their rights.” 

In spite of the aforestated observation made in 1925, this Court was again constrained to observe in Babu Lal vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. in para 29 that 

Procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree-holder starts in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. The judgment debtor tries to thwart the execution by all possible objections……” 

This Court, again in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr. was constrained to observe that 

….it appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favor of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that the proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and the person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of the immovable property, its execution takes a long time….” 

The court held that the position has not been improved till the present time and they strongly felt that there should not be an unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because if the decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain.

The court stated that they are sure the Executing Court will do the needful at an early date so as to see that the long-drawn litigation which was decided in favor of the appellant is finally concluded and the appellant-plaintiff gets effective justice. 

Comments:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Other Blogs

Jurisdiction Under Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
read more
Primary And Secondary Evidence
read more
Substitition Of Arbitrator
read more
The Commercial Court Act, 2015
read more
Arbitration clause: It’s Applicability and Validity
read more
Retrospectivity of Amendments to The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Delhi High Court Rules
read more
Appointment of Arbitrator u/s 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Extinguishment of Right
read more
The jurisdiction of Indian Courts in International commercial arbitration
read more
No Piecemeal Adjudication in Section 11 Petitions
read more
Decree Holders Entitled To Enjoy Fruits Of The Decree
read more

For more information

contact us

Disclaimer

The rules of the Bar Council of India Prohibits advertising and soliciting by advocates.The website is meant solely for the purpose of information, not for the purpose of advertising.

Decree Holders Entitled To Enjoy Fruits Of The Decree


Decree Holders Entitled To Enjoy Fruits Of The Decree
Expeditiously: Says Supreme Court

In Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and Anr. on 29 April 2013, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, has observed that Decree Holders must enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained by them in an expeditious manner. Justice Dave of Supreme Court of India has noted the dishonest strategies used by Judgment Debtors to escape the procedure of law and ultimately frustrate the entire efforts of a Decree Holder in getting the decree executed.

The court stated that even in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree-holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. They were concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January 1996. The decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till 2013, the appellant- plaintiff was not in a position to get fruits of his success. 

The court was of the view that it was really agonizing to learn that the appellant- decree-holder was unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even in 2013 though the appellant- plaintiff had finally succeeded in January 1996. The Privy Council in the case of The General Manager of the Raj Durbhnga under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing had observed that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree. In 1925, while citing the aforementioned judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd., Lucknow, the Court was constrained to observe that 

The Courts in India have to be careful to see that process of the Court and law of procedure are not abused by the judgment-debtors in such a way as to make the Courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who have obtained degrees in accordance with their rights.” 

In spite of the aforestated observation made in 1925, this Court was again constrained to observe in Babu Lal vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. in para 29 that 

Procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree-holder starts in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. The judgment debtor tries to thwart the execution by all possible objections……” 

This Court, again in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr. was constrained to observe that 

….it appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favor of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that the proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and the person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of the immovable property, its execution takes a long time….” 

The court held that the position has not been improved till the present time and they strongly felt that there should not be an unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because if the decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain.

The court stated that they are sure the Executing Court will do the needful at an early date so as to see that the long-drawn litigation which was decided in favor of the appellant is finally concluded and the appellant-plaintiff gets effective justice. 

Meet More Of The Blog

Jurisdiction Under Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

read more

Primary And Secondary Evidence

read more

Substitition Of Arbitrator

read more

The Commercial Court Act, 2015

read more

Arbitration clause: It’s Applicability and Validity

read more

Retrospectivity of Amendments to The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Delhi High Court Rules

read more

Appointment of Arbitrator u/s 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Extinguishment of Right

read more

The jurisdiction of Indian Courts in International commercial arbitration

read more

No Piecemeal Adjudication in Section 11 Petitions

read more

Exemplary Costs On Frivolous Litigation

read more

Review Jurisdiction: To Be Sparingly Exercised

read more

120 Day Statutory Period For Filing Written Statement

read more