The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that even if the decree said to be wrong but attains its finality, it is not the jurisdiction of the Executing Court not to execute the said decree, rather the Executing Court has to execute the decree as it is, as per the decree passed by the Original Court on adjudication of the suit. The matter would have been different if the decree passed by the concerned court is reversed by the appellate court or modified or partially modified by the superior court.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the money suit was filed by the Plaintiff in order to get the amount of the work executed by him. The competent court passed the decree holding the plaintiff entitled to a decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-. Then, the execution proceedings were going on and the petition was filed on behalf of the Judgment Debtor by objecting that the plaintiff (decree holder) is not entitled to the decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-, rather he is entitled only to get an amount of Rs.4,81,519/-, since, an amount of Rs.82,173/- was already deducted under the Sales Tax, Income-tax and royalty head which was to be paid by the contractor himself. The executing court overruled the said objection. Aggrieved by this, the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the Executing court the power to decide any dispute that may arise regarding the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree between the parties or their representative. This decision will be made by the Executing court and will not be subject to a separate suit.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, and Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan.
The court also observed that the Executing Court is required to carry out the decree in accordance with the ruling made by the Original Court after the suit was decided, even if the decree is deemed to be incorrect but nevertheless becomes final. If the appellate court had reversed the concerned court's ruling or if the superior court had changed the decree, even just slightly, the situation would have been different.
The court noted that the objection raised by the state was the same objection that was raised before and was death by the executing court by passing an order on 02.05.2014, and the same order was challenged before any higher forum.
The court also noted that the jurisdiction of the court exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, as conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is very least and the same can only be exercised if there is a manifest error or a jurisdictional error. The court relied upon the judgments titled Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, and Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the petitioners had failed to show any error apparent on the face of the order, hence, it is not a case where power is conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its supervisory jurisdiction is fit to be exercised.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Petition.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand V. Kishore Prasad Gupta
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Case No.: C.M.P. No. 1214 of 2023
Advocate for the Petition: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
