The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh Vs Ram Sharan Prasad Singh held that 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
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner had filed the title suit which was dismissed by the trial court and then, the appeal was filed by which the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit filed by the Petitioner was decreed. Furthermore, the execution case was filed in which the respondent objected that the case is not maintainable as the decree passed by the appellate court doesn’t contain the details of the property. The executing court passed the order which was challenged by the present miscellaneous application.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the executing court was erroneous and misconceived. It was furthermore submitted that the description of the property is only given in the decree prepared by the trial court, not in the decree of the appellate courts. Also, the decree of the appellate court would be of no use in determining the property. Then, it was submitted that the Petitioner had filed an application before the appellate court for the correction of the decree and the court had directed the respondents to vacate the property and hand over the possession to the appellant.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that when the appellate decree leaves out any description of the suit property, the Executing Court cannot move beyond the court's original decree
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court defined decree as “the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit”, and judgment as “the statement given by the judge on the grounds of a decree or order”.
It was observed that it is not always possible for the court to pass an order that is complete in all details when deciding the case, ensuring that the executing court or other body acting on the order will understand what the decision is when it is time to take action. The Court that issued the decree is most qualified to provide information and assess the true impact of the judgment's decision.
It was furthermore observed that if there is a contradiction between the judgment and the decree, the executing Court cannot ignore the decree, and the party who suffered prejudice must ask for the decree to be amended. If the decree served as the final adjudication, the issue of change would not come up. The C.P.C. Section 152 allows for changes to judgments limited to clerical or arithmetic errors; but, if there is a mistake of substance, the remedy is a review of the judgment.
It was noted that the fact that the decree must concur with the judgment demonstrates that it is secondary to the judgment and that it is the judgment, not the decree, that determines the outcome of the case.
It was also noted that when the appellate court does not change the lower court's decision, it is sufficient to indicate in a decision that the appeal is dismissed or that the lower court's decision is upheld. It is crucial to specify the relief the appellant will get in the event that a lower Court's judgment is reversed or modified.
The court also relied upon the judgments titled Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram, and Meenakshi Saxena Vs. ECGC Ltd.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the identity of the property could be established from the decree of the trial court, and the execution court was directed to execute the decree.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the present miscellaneous application.
Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh Vs Ram Sharan Prasad Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 1309 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kushagra Kush, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
