The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdish Pabreja vs Shalu Pabreja consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that for the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the Executing Court would certainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment.
Facts
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC was filed by petitioner assailing the orders (“impugned orders”) passed by the learned MM, Mahila Court (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Executing Court”). The Executing Court held that the order granting interim maintenance was operational from the date of filing the application u/s 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”). The petitioner herein was further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- out of the arrears of Rs.3,18,000/-.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that the Executing Court’s order was not only arbitrary, without jurisdiction, based on conjecture and surmise and bad in law, but also in violation of settled principles of law and was liable to be set aside. It was also contended that that no relief regarding any clarification on the aspect of “date of application” was sought in the execution petition, and a separate application was filed for the same. But the Executing Court did not consider it and the objections thereto filed by the petitioner, and the same remained pending. It was argued that in doing so, the Executing Court without any prayer been made in execution petition, suo motu issued clarifications in the impugned order.
Observations by the Court
The Bench noted that the question that arose for consideration was whether the determination/clarification by the Executing Court with respect to ‘date of filing of application’ in the impugned order was permissible in light of settled law or not.
Relying on Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors. and Agra, Deepa Bhargava & Anr v. Mahesh Bhargava & Ors. to note that an executing court, it is well known, cannot go behind the decree. It has no jurisdiction to modify a decree. But then in Topanmal Chhotammal v. Kundomal Gangaram, Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Sarangdhar Singh it was held that in case of any ambiguity in a decree, the executing court would be entitled to interpret the same in terms of the pleadings and the judgment. So, it opined that discretion vested in the Executing Court to interpret the decree to resolve the ambiguity with regard to the date from which the husband was liable to pay maintenance to the wife in this case.
It opined that the question regarding date of filing of application was quite significant in this case since several applications were filed over a period of five years seeking similar or overlapping reliefs by the wife/respondent as per the changing circumstances in her matrimonial life, and any error in determination of the correct date shall have an effect on the amount to be paid or liability to be incurred by the petitioner in pursuance to order of the trial court. So, the Executing Court should have considered the application seeking clarification filed by the wife/decree holder and also the objections filed thereto by the petitioner, and then should have decided the same. However, the said application and objections filed to the application had not been considered by the Executing Court.
Judgment
The Bench remanded this matter back to the Executing Court with a direction that the application filed by the wife/decree holder seeking clarification and the objections filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor be considered by the Executing Court and dismissed this petition accordingly.
Case: Jagdish Pabreja vs Shalu Pabreja
Citation: CRL.M.C. 3818/2022 & CRL.M.A. 15951/2022 (stay)
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decided on: 2nd November 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
