Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute arising out of the execution of a compromise decree and examined whether an executing court can modify the terms of a decree or is bound to enforce it as it stands.
The dispute concerned a compromise decree for division of land between the parties. The decree clearly demarcated their respective shares and obligations. During execution, however, the Executing Court altered the allocation of land citing practical difficulties such as unauthorized construction and prior sale of certain portions. These modifications were upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal.
The counsel for the Appellant argued that the Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the decree, as it is bound to execute it strictly as it stands. The counsel for the Respondent contended that the court only ensured effective implementation of the decree in light of practical difficulties.
The Court observed that “A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Executing Court is empowered to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree sought to be executed. In other words, it has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same.”
The Court further held that “A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts.”
The Supreme Court held that the Executing Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction in modifying the decree. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Court directed that the decree be executed strictly in its original terms.
Case Title: Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh
Case No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8166 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Shoeb Alam, AOR Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Rahul Prakash Pathak.
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Gopal Jha (argued by), Adv. Sanjeev Baliyan, Adv. Tilak Vij, Adv. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Sawan Datta, Adv. Shireesha Sharma.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
