Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views110 pages

Execution

The document outlines the execution process of court decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), detailing the roles of judgment-creditors and judgment-debtors, as well as the various methods and principles governing execution. Key aspects include the courts that can execute decrees, the application process for execution, modes of execution, and the handling of objections and claims. It also discusses relevant case law to illustrate the application of these principles in practice.

Uploaded by

bhavya.gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views110 pages

Execution

The document outlines the execution process of court decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), detailing the roles of judgment-creditors and judgment-debtors, as well as the various methods and principles governing execution. Key aspects include the courts that can execute decrees, the application process for execution, modes of execution, and the handling of objections and claims. It also discusses relevant case law to illustrate the application of these principles in practice.

Uploaded by

bhavya.gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 110

CPC II

EXECUTION Isha Ahlawat


Year III, Trimester I
A files a suit against B for ₹10,000 and obtains a decree in his favor. In this case, A is
referred to as the judgment-creditor or decree-holder, while B is the judgment-
debtor. The sum of ₹10,000 is known as the judgment-debt or decretal amount.
Since the decree has been passed against B, he is legally obligated to pay ₹10,000
to A. However, if B refuses to pay the decretal amount despite the decree, can A
recover the amount?
"Execution" refers to the process of enforcing or giving effect to a court's judgment.

 It is the legal procedure through which decrees and orders are enforced by the court,
allowing the decree-holder to obtain the benefit or relief granted by the judgment.
 Execution is considered complete when the judgment-creditor or decree-holder receives
the money or property awarded to them under the judgment, decree, or order.
 The principles governing execution of decrees and orders are dealt with in Sections 36
to 74 (substantive law) and Order 21 of the Code (procedural provisions).
 Order 21 contains 106 Rules
Key Heads under Order 21 CPC

 Courts which may execute decrees


 Application for execution
 Stay of execution
 Mode of execution
 Arrest and detention
 Attachment of property
 Questions to be determined by executing court
 Adjudication of claims
 Sale of property
 Delivery of possession
 Distribution of assets
1) Courts which may execute decrees
Governed by Section 38 and 39 CPC.
Execution can be carried out by:
 The court which passed the decree, or
 A transferee court (where the judgment-debtor resides or holds property).

(2) Application for execution


Initiated by filing an Execution Application under Order 21 Rule 10.
Must contain:
 Details of the decree
 Parties involved
 Mode of execution sought

(3) Stay of execution


Execution can be stayed under Order 21 Rule 26–29 or Order 41 Rule 5 (during appeal).
Purpose: to avoid hardship or irreparable loss to judgment-debtor.
(4) Mode of execution
Provided under Order 21 Rules 30–36.
Common methods:
 Delivery of property
 Attachment and sale
 Arrest and detention
 Appointment of a receiver

(5) Arrest and detention of judgment-debtor


Order 21 Rules 37–40.
Used in money decrees when other means of recovery fail. Requires court satisfaction that the debtor has the
means but refuses to pay.

(6) Attachment of property


Order 21 Rules 41–59 (detailed procedures – mostly relevant for money decrees).
Both movable and immovable property can be attached. Some properties are exempt under Section 60
CPC (e.g., tools of trade, basic necessities).
(7) Questions to be determined by executing court
Section 47 CPC.
All questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree must be determined
by the executing court, not through a separate suit.

(8) Adjudication of claims and objections


Order 21 Rules 58–63.
Third parties can raise objections against attachment or sale of their property. Court must
conduct an inquiry and decide.

(9) Sale of property


Order 21 Rules 64–94.
Procedure for attachment, proclamation of sale, conducting auction, and delivery of property
to purchaser.
(10) Delivery of possession
Order 21 Rules 35–36.
Decree for possession of immovable property executed by removing occupants and delivering
possession to decree-holder.

(11) Distribution of assets


Order 21 Rule 52 & Rule 64 onwards, and Section 73 CPC.
If property is sold and multiple decree-holders exist, proceeds are distributed among them.
WHAT ARE THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO EXECUTION?

 The executing court cannot go beyond the decree or vary or modify its terms.
 However, if the terms of the decree are vague, the executing court can construe the decree and refer
even to the pleadings in the suit.
 In case of inherent lack of jurisdiction the decree passed is a nullity and its invalidity could be raised in
execution proceedings – here the court cannot be said to be going behind the decree as there is no decree
at all. However, the inherent lack of jurisdiction must appear from the face of the record. – Also see Section
21 (3).
 The executing court can also go into the executability of the decree and enquire whether the decree has
ceased to be executable.
 The executing court has the power to mold the relief granted to the Plaintiff in accordance with the
changed circumstances.
 The principle of res judicata specifically applies to execution proceedings by virtue of Explanation VII of
section 11. But an earlier decision can operate as res judicata if the execution application has been heard
and finally decided and not otherwise. If the application is dismissed for default of appearance, non-
prosecution, as being premature or as not pressed, the principle of res judicata will not apply.
 Under the Code, the provisions thereof applicable to decrees are deemed applicable to orders also.
Hence, the same procedures would need to be adopted for execution of orders also.
Section 38. Court by which decree may be executed.
A decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to
which it is sent for execution.
Section 37. Definition of Court which passed a decree.
The expression "Court which passed a decree," or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the
execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to
include,

(a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the
Court of first instance, and

(b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court
which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application
for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit.

1[Explanation.-- The Court of first instance does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute a decree
merely on the ground that after the institution of the suit wherein the decree was passed or after the
passing of the decree, any area has been transferred from the jurisdiction of that Court to the
jurisdiction of any other Court; but, in every such case, such other Court shall also have jurisdiction to
execute the decree, if at the time of making the application for execution of the decree it would
have jurisdiction to try the said suit.]

Note - by virtue of the deeming provision in section 37, the “court which passed the decree” is
deemed to include several other courts as well.
Section 39. Transfer of decree.
(1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree holder, send it for execution to another
Court [of competent jurisdiction],

(a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally
works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient
to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(c) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of
the Court which passed it, or

(d) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason, which it shall record in writing, that the decree
should be executed by such other Court.

(2) The Court which passed a decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent
jurisdiction.

[(3) For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if, at the time of
making the application for the transfer of decree to it, such Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such
decree was passed.]
[(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Court which passed a decree to execute such decree against
any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.]
Key Points from Section 39 –
 Transfer is discretionary, not mandatory.
 The decree-holder has no absolute right to demand transfer, only a procedural right to
request it.
 As per the 1976 Amendment, the transferee court must have pecuniary jurisdiction over
the matter.
 The 2002 Amendment clarified that the original court cannot execute a decree against
a person or property outside its territorial jurisdiction.
MAHADEO PRASAD SINGH VS RAM LOCHAN
(1980)4SCC 354
Matadin, the father of Ram Lochan (respondent 1), was a fixed-rate tenant of the plots in dispute.
 Ram Naresh Singh (deceased), brother of Mahadeo Prasad Singh (appellant 1), obtained a money
decree against Matadin on February 18, 1953, from the Judge, Small Causes Court, Varanasi.
 The decree was transferred to the Court of Munsif, Varanasi, for execution.
 The plots were put to auction by the executing court and purchased by Ram Naresh Singh on July 20,
1956. The sale was confirmed on August 29, 1956, and a sale certificate was issued on September 8,
1956. Ram Naresh Singh took delivery of possession on March 14, 1957.
 Ram Naresh Singh subsequently sold parts of the plots to appellant 2 and respondents 6 to 10.
 Matadin died in 1960. His son, Ram Lochan (respondent 1), instituted a suit on June 14, 1961, more
than three years after possession was delivered, under Section 229B read with Section 209 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He sought a declaration that he was in possession as a
Bhoomidar, or alternatively, possession on the same basis, alleging the sale to Ram Naresh Singh was
without jurisdiction and a nullity.
History of the case –
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding it was barred by constructive res judicata and Section 47 of
the CPC, that the Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction, and that the purchasers were bona fide.
The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, holding that the executing court (Munsif) had no
jurisdiction to sell the land under Section 42 of the CPC (as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1954), that the sale was void, and that the suit was not barred by res judicata or Section 47 CPC.
The Board of Revenue dismissed a second appeal, affirming that the auction sale was void and did not
confer title, thus the appellant's possession was without title.
A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition, quashing the judgments of the
Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner. The Single Judge held the execution sale was proper as
per Section 42 CPC prior to its 1954 amendment, as the decree was passed before the amendment.
A Special Appeal to a Full Bench of the High Court saw a majority holding that the Small Cause Court
had no power to execute a decree by attachment and sale of immovable property. Consequently, the
transferee court (Munsif) also had no such jurisdiction, as its powers became co-terminus with the
transferor court after the 1954 amendment came into force, which was before the execution date. The
amendment, being procedural, was applicable.
Sinha, J. dissented, arguing that the 1954 Amendment Act did not apply and a substantive right to
execute the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property had accrued to Ram Naresh Singh,
which was saved by Section 3 of the Amendment Act.
The majority view of the High Court was upheld, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court's majority and dismissed the appeal.
The Court held that the execution sale of the land in dispute was totally without jurisdiction and null and void.
It further concluded that since the sale was null and void, the contention that the suit was barred by Section 47 of
the CPC did not survive.

Reasoning of the Court:


Powers of Courts and Amendments to Section 42 CPC:
◦ The Small Cause Court, which passed the decree on February 18, 1953, was competent to execute it, but not by
attachment and sale of immovable property (due to Order 21, Rule 82 of the Code). It could only execute by
attachment and sale of movable property.
◦ Section 42 of the CPC, prior to its amendment by the U.P. Act (No. XXIV) of 1954, stated that a transferee court
had "the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself".
◦ The U.P. Act (No. XXIV of 1954), effective November 30, 1954, amended Section 42(1). The crucial change was
substituting "as the Court which passed it" for "as if it had been passed by itself".
◦ The effect of this amendment was that the powers of the transferee court became co-terminus with the powers of
the court that passed the decree. If the transferor court's power to execute its own decree was restricted, the same
restriction applied to the transferee court.
◦ The decree was transferred on January 24, 1955, and put into execution after the 1954 Amendment Act had
come into force
Substantive vs. Procedural Rights:
◦ Generally, statutes affecting substantive rights operate prospectively unless stated
otherwise. However, this presumption does not apply to enactments affecting procedure or
practice, such as the CPC, as no one has a vested right in a course of procedure.
◦ The Court concluded that the right to get a decree transferred under Section 39(1)(d) is a
mere procedural right, not an indefeasible or substantive right. The Small Causes Court had
discretion to refuse transfer.
◦ The provisions of Section 51 of the CPC (listing modes of execution) are merely
procedural in character. A decree-holder must execute the decree according to the procedure
in force when execution is sought.
◦ Therefore, the Amendment Act XXIV of 1954, being procedural, applied.
Conclusion on Jurisdiction and Sale Validity:
◦ Since the 1954 Amendment made the Munsif Court's powers co-terminus with the Small
Cause Court, and the Small Cause Court had no power to sell immovable property, the Munsif
Court also had no jurisdiction to order the sale of immovable property.
◦ Consequently, the sale of immovable property ordered by the Munsif was wholly without
jurisdiction and a nullity.
Bar of Section 47 CPC:
◦ The Court emphasized that this was not a case of an irregular or voidable sale,
but of a sale that was entirely without jurisdiction and non est in the eye of law.
◦ A nullity does not need to be set aside.
◦ A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and its invalidity can
be raised at any stage, even in collateral proceedings [citing Kiran Singh v. Chaman
Paswan].
◦ Thus, the argument that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the CPC did not
survive once the sale was deemed null and void.

Effect of 1970 Amendment:


◦ The Court noted that the 1954 amendment was deleted by a 1970 U.P.
Amendment Act, reviving the unamended Section 42(1). However, the 1970 Act was
not retrospective and did not affect the prior operation of the 1954 Act
MOHIT BHARGAVA VS BHARAT BHUSHAN
BHARGAVA (2007) 4 SCC 795
The case involved Mohit Bhargava (the judgment debtor) and Bharat Bhushan Bhargava (the decree holder, who was
the plaintiff in the original suit).
Original Suit and Decrees: The decree holder filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of a
partnership and rendition of accounts. A preliminary decree was passed on April 27, 1981, dissolving the partnership
and directing an accounting. The judgment debtor's grandfather, a partner in the firm, died in 1985 after
bequeathing properties to the judgment debtor (who was a minor at the time) via a will. A final decree was passed on
November 29, 2002, by the District Court Gwalior, holding the judgment debtor liable to pay a significant sum to the
plaintiff and other partners.
Execution Proceedings: On January 2, 2003, the decree holder filed an execution petition in the same District Court
of Gwalior. The decree holder sought an injunction on March 19, 2003, to restrain the person holding a building (said
to be bequeathed to the judgment debtor) from transferring possession or documents to the judgment debtor, and also
to restrain a bank from allowing the judgment debtor to operate estate accounts. The Gwalior court passed orders
directing non-transfer of properties (March 19, 2003) and later ordered documents produced by the property
occupant to be kept in safe custody (July 7, 2003).
Dispute over Jurisdiction: The decree holder applied for the sale of a building located in Indore (14, Bakshi Colony)
by public auction to realize the decree amount. The judgment debtor objected, arguing that the Gwalior executing
court lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of property located in Indore, which was outside its local limits
Lower Court Decisions:
◦ The Gwalior executing court rejected the judgment debtor's objection and
directed the sale of the Indore property on April 6, 2004, believing it had territorial
jurisdiction.
◦ The judgment debtor challenged this in the High Court. The High Court agreed
that the Gwalior court lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of property
outside its limits and transferred the execution to the concerned court at Indore.
However, the High Court upheld the earlier restraint orders dated March 19, 2003,
and July 7, 2003.
Appeal to Supreme Court:
Both the judgment debtor (aggrieved by the upholding of restraint orders) and the
decree holder (aggrieved by the transfer of jurisdiction) appealed to the Supreme
Court
Territorial Jurisdiction for Sale of Property:
 While the court which passed the decree (Gwalior) is generally entitled to
execute it (Section 38), its power to execute against property is limited.
 The amendment to Section 39 of the Code in 2002 (Sub-section 4) resolved a
previous conflict of judicial opinion. This amendment makes it mandatory that if
execution is sought against property outside the local limits of the executing court's
jurisdiction, the court is not authorized to proceed with execution. Instead, it must
transfer the decree to the court within whose jurisdiction the property is located.
 The Court noted that the property in Indore was not a partnership asset, so
Order 21 Rule 50 was not applicable. It was a property belonging to the judgment
debtor sought to be sold to realize the decree.
 Therefore - the Gwalior court was incorrect in overruling the judgment debtor's
objection to its jurisdiction over the Indore property, and the High Court was justified
in transferring the decree to the Indore court
Jurisdiction for Restraint Orders (Injunctions):

 The SC found no merit in the judgment debtor's challenge to the High Court's
decision to uphold the orders dated March 19, 2003, and July 7, 2003.
 The SC said that these orders directed a third party to not hand over possession
or documents to the judgment debtor and for documents to be kept in safe custody.
 Such orders are "in the nature of a 'freezing order' or a 'Mareva injunction' and
an order akin to an Anton Piller order," which can be issued even if the property or
the person concerned is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
 Furthermore, the judgment debtor had not challenged these orders at the
appropriate time
Final Holding –
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's order, with a
clarification:
• The Court upheld the High Court's decision to transfer the execution relating to the
sale of the Indore property to the court at Indore, concluding that the Gwalior court
lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of property outside its local limits.
• The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to interfere with the earlier restraint
orders (March 19, 2003, and July 7, 2003), finding them to be within the Gwalior
court's jurisdiction as they were "freezing orders" or "Mareva injunctions".
• Clarification: The Supreme Court clarified that the Gwalior court's earlier direction
for the sale of the Indore house (dated May 11, 2004) would "fall to the ground"
because the decree was being transferred. The decree holder is now free to move an
application for the sale of the property in the executing court at Indore
Main Principle - The transferee court shall have the same powers in executing the decree as if it had been
passed by itself. However, there are some fetters on the powers of the transferee court.
Section 42
Powers of Court in executing transferred decree. (1) The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have
the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons is disobeying or
obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such Court in the same manner as if it had
passed the decree. And its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of
appeal as if the decree had passed by itself.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the powers of the Court under
that sub-section shall include the following powers of the Court which passed the decree, namely: --
(a) power to send the decree for execution to another Court under section 39;
(b) power to execute the decree against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor under
section 50;
(c) power to order attachment of a decree.

(3) A Court passing an order in exercise of the powers specified in sub-section (2) shall send a copy
thereof to the Court which passed the decree.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer on the Court to which a decree is sent for execution
any of the following powers, namely:--
(a) power to order execution at the instance of the transferee of the decree ;
(b) in the case of a decree passed against a firm, power to grant leave to execute such decree against
any person, other than such a person as is referred to in clause (b),or clause (c), of sub-rule (1) of rule 50
of Order XXI.]
Procedure to be adopted for transfer of a decree- Sections 40, 41, 42 and Order 21
Rules 4, 5,6,7,8,9

Section 40. Transfer of decree to Court in another State.


Where a decree is sent for execution in another State, it shall be sent to such Court
and executed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State.

Section 41. Result of Execution Proceedings to be Certified.


The Court to which a decree is sent for execution shall certify to the Court which
passed it the fact of such execution, or where the former Court fails to execute the
same the circumstances attending such failure.
Procedure in Execution (Rules) -
1. Documents Sent by the Court Passing the Decree
The court that passed the decree must forward the following to the executing court:
 Copy of the decree.
 Certificate of non-satisfaction or part-satisfaction of the decree.
 Copy of the order for execution, or, if no such order exists, a certificate to that effect.

2. Role of the Executing Court


Upon receiving these documents, the executing court shall:
 File the documents without requiring further proof.
 Have the same powers to execute the decree as if it had originally passed it.
 Report back to the original court about:
 The execution of the decree, or
 The reasons for failure to execute it.
3. Execution by District or High Court
If the executing court is a District Court, it may:
 Execute the decree itself, or
 Transfer it to a subordinate court of competent jurisdiction.
If the executing court is a High Court, it shall:
 Execute the decree as if it were passed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

4. Execution in Another State


If the decree is sent for execution in a different State, it must be executed:
 By the executing court, and
 In accordance with the rules applicable in that State.

5. Jurisdiction Over Immovable Property in Multiple Jurisdictions (Order 21, Rule 3)


If an immovable property (estate or tenure) is located within the territorial limits of two or more courts, then:
 Any one of those courts has jurisdiction to attach and sell the entire property, despite it spanning multiple
jurisdictions.
Execution of Foreign Decrees in India (Sections 43–44A)
Indian courts can execute decrees from the following:
 Indian courts not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
 Foreign courts established under authority of the Central Government.
 Revenue courts in India excluded from CPC provisions.
 Superior courts of any reciprocating territory (recognized foreign countries with an
agreement for mutual enforcement of decrees).

Note - Execution at Multiple Locations


The Code permits a decree-holder to execute a decree simultaneously at more than one
place, against different properties of the judgment-debtor.
However, this should be done only in exceptional cases, and typically after notice is given to
the judgment-debtor.
 Powers of the Transferor Court
Once a decree is transferred to another competent court, the transferor court loses jurisdiction to execute it.
From that point on, only the transferee court can entertain execution applications.
However, this limitation applies only to the transferred matter, not to unrelated issues.

 Powers of the Transferee Court


The transferee court gains full authority to execute the decree as if it had passed the decree itself.
It decides all questions arising during the execution.
Its jurisdiction continues until it reports back (certifies execution) to the transferor court.

 Powers of the Executing Court


The executing court has the same powers in execution as the court that passed the decree.
Its duty is to ensure the plaintiff receives exactly what the decree directs—no more, no less.
However, it cannot decide issues that fall within the exclusive domain of the original court (e.g. altering decree
terms).
The executing court's role is limited to implementing the decree, not reinterpreting or modifying it.
Section 46. Precepts.
(1) Upon the application of the decree-holder the Court which passed the decree may.
whenever it thinks fit, issue a precept to any other Court which would be competent to
execute such decree to attach any property belonging to the judgment-debtor and
specified in the precept.

(2) The Court to which a precept is sent shall proceed to attach the property in the
manner prescribed in regard to the attachment of property in execution of a decree:

Provided that no attachment under a precept shall continue for more than two months
unless the period of attachment is extended by an order of the Court which passed the
decree or unless before the determination of such attachment the decree has been
transferred to the Court by which the attachment has been made and the decree-
holder has applied for an order for the sale of such property.
Revision - General Principles Governing Executing Courts:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction
 A court must have territorial jurisdiction to execute a decree.
 It cannot execute a decree concerning property located entirely outside its local jurisdiction.

2. Executing Court Cannot Go Behind the Decree


 The executing court must enforce the decree as it is, without questioning its legality or correctness.
 It cannot alter, vary, or challenge the terms of the decree.
 This is because execution proceedings are collateral to the judgment—not a forum for appeal or
review.

3. Decree Passed Without Jurisdiction Is a Nullity


 If a decree is passed by a court that lacks inherent jurisdiction, it is void and can be challenged at any
stage, including during execution or in collateral proceedings.
 In such cases, there's no valid decree in the eyes of law.
4. Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction Must Be Apparent on the Record
If the decree on its face shows a valid ground for the court’s jurisdiction, it is considered valid. The
executing court must then accept and enforce it without questioning jurisdiction. Allowing otherwise
would improperly make the executing court act as an appellate court.

5. Effect of Death of Decree-Holder or Judgment-Debtor


A valid and executable decree remains enforceable even after the death of the decree-holder or
judgment-debtor. It can be executed against their legal representatives.

6. Clarification of Vague or Ambiguous Decrees –


If the decree’s terms are unclear or ambiguous, the executing court may interpret it to ascertain
the correct meaning. For this, it can refer to the judgment and the pleadings in the case.

7. Effect of Subsequent Developments –


The executing court can examine whether, due to subsequent events, the decree has
become inexecutable as per its original terms.
8. Revival of Inexecutable Decree by Statutory Amendment
A decree that became inexecutable due to law may become executable again if the
law is amended later.

9. Molding Relief Based on Changed Circumstances


The executing court has the power to adjust or modify the relief granted, in light
of changed circumstances, while staying within the scope of the decree.

10. Powers of Transferee Court


A court to which a decree is transferred has all the powers of execution as if it
had passed the decree itself.
Application for Execution

 Execution proceedings begin with the filing of an execution application. This application must
be made to:
 The court which passed the decree, or
The court to which the decree has been transferred for execution.
 The procedure is governed by Rules 10–25 and 105–106 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Who May Apply for Execution? (Rule 10 of Order 21)

(i) Decree-Holder
(ii) Legal Representative of the Decree-Holder - If the decree-holder has died, their legal heir can file the application.
(iii) Representative of the Decree-Holder - A person representing the decree-holder in a legal or official capacity.
(iv) Person Claiming Under the Decree-Holder - Anyone who derives rights from the decree-holder under the decree.
(v) Transferee of the Decree-Holder - A transferee of the decree can apply if all the following conditions are met:
 The decree was transferred by written assignment or operation of law.
 The application is made to the court that passed the decree.

Notice and hearing opportunity must be given to both the transferor, and the judgment-debtor, if the transfer was by
assignment.
 Note: Issuing notice is mandatory. Failure to do so renders all execution proceedings void. The purpose is to conclusively
determine the validity of the transfer in the presence of all concerned parties.
(vi) One or More Joint Decree-Holders - They may apply if the decree does not prohibit individual execution ; The
application is for execution of the entire decree ; The application is for the benefit of all joint decree-holders.
(vii) Person with Special Interest - A person with a direct interest in the outcome of the decree.
Other Eligible Applicants:

A person represented in a representative suit, even if not formally on record.


A real beneficiary under the decree.
A defendant in a partition suit, to the extent of his share.
A court-appointed receiver acting on behalf of the decree-holder.
An insolvent, provided he applies before being adjudicated as such.
An agent authorised by the decree-holder.
 Who Cannot Apply for Execution?
A person who is neither a decree-holder nor entitled to execute the decree cannot file an execution application.
A third party or stranger, even if a beneficiary under a compromise, has no right to apply for execution.
A beneficiary cannot invoke Section 146 CPC (proceedings by or against representatives) unless the trustee has
formally transferred an interest in their favor.
A court-appointed receiver can apply for execution. However, if the receiver dies, their legal heirs (e.g., son)cannot
continue the proceedings unless properly authorized.

 Against Whom Execution May Be Taken?


(i) Judgment-Debtor
(ii) Legal Representatives of the Judgment-Debtor - If the judgment-debtor has died, execution may proceed
against their legal heirs. However, they are liable only to the extent of the property inherited from the deceased.
(iii) Representative or Successor of the Judgment-Debtor - This includes any person who has acquired rights from
the judgment-debtor.
(iv) Surety of the Judgment-Debtor - If a person has stood surety for the judgment-debtor, execution may be
pursued against them as well.
 To Whom Should the Execution Application Be Made?
The application may be filed in:
 The court which passed the decree, or
 The court to which the decree has been transferred for execution.
Note: If territorial jurisdiction changes after the decree is passed, the execution application may be
filed either in the original court or the court to which the area is now assigned.

 Contents of an Execution Application (Rule 11, Order 21) – Important for preparing execution application
Unless it is a simple money decree, every execution application must be:
- In writing
- Signed and verified by the applicant or someone acquainted with the facts
Include essential details such as:
 Suit number
 Names of the parties
 Date and details of the decree
 Amount due or relief granted
(Contd.) Additional Requirements Based on the Nature of Execution:

 Attachment of Movable Property (not in debtor’s possession): Must be accompanied by an inventory with
accurate description.
 Attachment of Growing Crops: Application must mention the likely time of harvest. (read with Section 60)
 Attachment of Immovable Property: Must include -
 A clear description sufficient to identify the property
 The judgment-debtor's share or interest in that property
 Arrest and Detention in Civil Prison: Application must state or be accompanied by an affidavit stating
the grounds for arrest.
 Attachment of Land Registered with the Collector: The court may ask for a certified extract from
the Collector’s register.
 Form of Execution Application
An application for execution should be filed in Form No. 6 of Appendix E to the First Schedule of the Code of
Civil Procedure. However, if the application is not in the prescribed form, it is not a fatal defect. Such an error
is not considered material and does not invalidate the application.

 Procedure After Receiving the Execution Application


(a) Admission of the Application – Rule 17
Upon receiving an execution application, the court must:
 Check whether the application complies with Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21.
 If the requirements are met, the court must admit and register the application.
 If there are defects, the court must:
 Allow the applicant to correct them immediately, or
 Grant a specific time for rectification.
If the applicant fails to remedy the defect within the given time, the court shall reject the application. However,
Note - Rule 17 is procedural in nature, and must be interpreted liberally to avoid unnecessary dismissal of valid
claims due to minor errors.
(b) Hearing of the Application – Rules 105 and 106 (Order 21)
Rule 105: Hearing Procedure
The court may fix a date for hearing the execution application.
On the hearing date:
 If the applicant is absent, the court may dismiss the application for default.
 If the opposite party is absent, the court may proceed ex parte and pass an appropriate order.

Rule 106: Setting Aside Dismissal or Ex Parte Orders


If an application is dismissed for default or an ex parte order is passed under Rule 105:
 The aggrieved party may file an application to set aside the order.
 The court shall set aside such order if sufficient cause is shown for the party's absence.
Note - An order rejecting the restoration application under Rule 106(1) is appealable.
Notice of Execution – Rule 22 (Order 21 CPC)

A notice to show cause to the person against whom a decree is being executed (on why the decree should not be
executed) is mandatory in the following situations:
Delay in Filing Execution: The execution application is filed more than two years after:
 The date of the decree, or
 The last order passed on a previous execution application.
Execution Against Legal Representatives: The execution is sought against the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor.
Execution of Foreign Decrees: The decree was passed by a court in a reciprocating foreign territory.
Execution Against Assignee or Receiver: The judgment-debtor has been declared insolvent, and the execution is
against their assignee or court-appointed receiver.
Arrest and Detention: The decree is for money payment, and execution is sought by arrest and detention of the
judgment-debtor.
Execution Against Surety: The application is filed against a surety who had guaranteed the performance of the
decree.
Execution by Transferee or Assignee of Decree-Holder: The execution application is filed by a person who has
acquired the decree from the original decree-holder.
Legal Nature of the Requirement:

Mandatory Provision: Issuing a notice in the above situations is a condition precedent to valid execution.
It goes to the jurisdiction of the executing court.
Constitutional Validity - Rule 22 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; it is a necessary
procedural safeguard.
Effect of Omission: Failure to issue a mandatory notice:
 Renders the entire execution proceeding null, void, and without jurisdiction, unless: The judgment-debtor
has waived their right to notice.
Discretion to Dispense with Notice – Sub-rule (2):
The court may waive the notice requirement if:
 It would cause unreasonable delay, or
 It would defeat the ends of justice.
However, the court must record reasons for such waiver.
Procedure After Notice: Rule 23

If a person served with a notice under Rule 22 fails to appear or does not show cause against
the execution, the court shall, unless there is a valid reason to the contrary, proceed to issue the
necessary orders to execute the decree. However, if the person raises objections to the
execution, the court must consider those objections and pass an appropriate order based on
the merits.

Limitation Period
The limitation period for executing a decree, except one granting a mandatory injunction,
is twelve years from the date of the decree.
For decrees granting a mandatory injunction, the limitation period is three years from the date
of the decree.
Execution Application and Res Judicata

 The principle of res judicata applies to execution proceedings, as explicitly stated


in Explanation VII to Section 11, added by the Amendment Act of 1976.
 For an earlier execution order to operate as res judicata, the application must have
been heard and finally decided on merits by the court.
 If an execution application was dismissed on grounds such as:
 Default of appearance,
 Non-prosecution,
 Being premature or belated,
 Not being pressed, or
 Being not maintainable,
then such dismissal will not operate as res judicata, and a fresh execution application can be
filed.
Questions –
 Imagine you are the legal representative of a deceased judgment-debtor. You
inherit a property worth Rs.10 lakhs. The original decree was for Rs.15 lakhs. How
much can be recovered from you, and what defences might you raise?
 A sale in execution is held after the judgment-debtor dies but before his death is
notified. His heirs claim the sale is void. Are they right?
 If a surety under Section 145 dies, can his legal representatives be made liable to
discharge the debt? Why or why not?
PAYMENT UNDER A DECREE
Order 21, Rule 1. Modes of paying money under decree.
(1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely-

(a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court
by postal money order or through a bank; or
(b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any
other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or
(c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs.
(2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub rule (1), the
judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or
directly to him by registered post, acknowledgement due.
(3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-
rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the
following particulars, namely-
(a) the number of the original suit;
(b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as
the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants;
(c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or
costs;
(d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and (e) the name and
address of the payer.

(4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run
from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2).

(5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date
of such payment:
Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal order or payment through a bank,
interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids
acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date
on which money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal
authorities or the bank, as the case may be.
Order 21, Rule 2. Payment out of Court to decree-holder.
(1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court. [or decree of any
kind is otherwise adjusted] in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-
holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree,
and the Court shall record the same accordingly.
(2) The judgment-debtor [or any person who has become surety for the judgment-debtor] also may
inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the
decree- holder to show cause, on a day to be fixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment
should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to
show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court record
the same accordingly.
(2A) No payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment- debtor unless-
(a) the payment is made in the manner provided in rule 1; or
(b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence; or
(c) the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf of, the decree-holder in his reply to the
notice given under sub-rule (2) of rule 1, on before the Court.
(3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be
recognized by any Court executing the decree.
WHO CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION AND AGAINST
WHOM CAN IT BE MADE ?

Section 146. Proceedings by or against representatives.


Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where
any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person then the
proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person
claiming under him.
Section 49. Transferee .-
Every transferee of a decree shall hold the same subject to the equities (if any) which the
judgment-debtor might have enforced against the original decree-holder.
Section 50. Legal representative.
(1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree
may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the
deceased.

(2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent
of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and,
for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or
on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it
thinks fit.

Section 52. Enforcement of decree against legal representative.


(1) Where a decree is passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person, and
the decree is for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased, it may be executed by the
attachment and sale of any such property.

(2) Where no such property remains in the possession of the judgment-debtor and he fails to satisfy the
Court that he has duly applied such property of the deceased as is proved to have come into his
possession, the decree may be executed against the judgment-debtor to the extent of the property in
respect of which he has failed so to satisfy the Court in the same manner as if the decree had been
against him personally.
Section 53. Liability of ancestral property.
For the purposes of section 50 and section 52, property in the hands of a son or
other descendant which is liable under Hindu law for the payment of the debt of a
deceased ancestor, in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed
to be property of the deceased which has come to the hands of the son or other
descendant as his legal representative.
Order 21, Rule 16. Application for execution by transferee of decree.
Where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the
interest of any decree-holder in the decree in transferred by assignment in writing or by
operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which
passed if, and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same
conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder:

Provided also that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by
assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-
debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any)
to its execution:
Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons
has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others.
Explanation-
Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of section 146 (Proceedings by or against
representatives), and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject matter of the
suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as
required by this rule.
Order 21, Rule 22A. Sale not to be set aside on the death of the judgment-debtor
before the sale but after the service of the proclamation of sale.
Where any property is sold in execution of a decree, the sale shall not be set aside
merely by reason of the death of the judgment-debtor between the date of issue of
the proclamation of sale and the date of the sale notwithstanding the failure of the
decree-holder to substitute the legal representative of such deceased judgment-
debtor, but, in case of such failure, the Court may set aside the sale if it is satisfied
that the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor has been prejudiced
by the sale.

Note: death of judgment debtor before sale but after proclamation of sale does not
vitiate the sale.
Section. 145. Enforcement of liability of surety.
Where any person has furnished security or given a guarantee--

(a) for the performance of any decree or any part thereof, or


(b) for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree, or
(c) for the payment of any money, or for the fulfilment of any condition imposed on
any person, under an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceeding consequent
thereon, the decree or order may be executed in the manner therein provided for the
execution of decrees, namely:--
(i) if he has rendered himself personally liable, against him to that extent;
(ii) if he has furnished any property as security, by sale of such property to the extent
of the security;
(iii) if the case falls both under clauses (i) and (ii) then to the extent specified in those
clauses, and such person shall, be deemed to be a party within the meaning of
section 47:

Provided that such notice as the Court in each case thinks sufficient has been given to
the surety.
Order 21, Rule 15. Application for execution by joint decree-holders.
(1) Where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any
one or more such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the
contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, or,
where of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives
of the deceased.
(2) Where the Court sees sufficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on
an application made under this rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary
for protecting the interest of the persons who have not joined in the application.

Question - Should the law allow one joint decree-holder to execute the decree
without the consent of others? What problems might arise? Should Order 21 Rule 15
be reformed?
STAY OF EXECUTION
Order 21, Rule 26. When Court may stay execution.
(1) the Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown,
stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to
the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of
the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other order relating to
the decree or execution which might have been made by such Court of first instance or Appellate
Court if execution had been issued thereby, or if application for execution had been made
thereto. (Can this be construed harmoniously with Section 47?)
(2) Where the property or person of the judgment-debtor has been seized under an execution, the
Court which issued the execution may order the restitution of such property or the discharge of such
person pending the result of the application.
(3) Power to require security from, or impose conditions upon, judgment-debtor-
Before making an order to stay execution, or for the restitution of property or the discharge of the
judgment-debtor, the Court shall require such security from, or impose such conditions upon, the
judgment-debtor as it thinks fit.
Order 21, Rule 27. Liability of judgment-debtor discharged.
No order of restitution or discharge under rule 26 shall prevent the property or person of a judgment-
debtor from being retaken in execution of the decree sent for execution.

Order 21, Rule 28. Order of Court which passed decree or of Appellate Court to be binding upon
Court applied to.
Any order of the Court by which the decree was passed, or of such Court of appeal as aforesaid, in
relation to the execution of such decree, shall be binding upon the Court to which the decree was sent
for execution.

(Stay where another Suit is pending) –


Order 21, Rule 29. Stay of execution pending suit between decree-holder and judgment-debtor.
Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree of such Court or of a decree
which is being executed by such Court, on the part of the person against whom the decree was
passed, the Court may, on such terms as to security or otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the
decree until the pending suit has been decided:
Provided that if the decree is one for payment of money, the Court shall, if it grants stay without
requiring security, record its reasons for so doing.
(Note – This provision was amended in 1977)
 “As a result of the amendment, the court acquires competency to stay not only the decree which it passed, but
also the decree which had been transferred to it for execution, though passed by another court.” - H.L. Nantha vs
T.C. Ramalingam Pillai AIR1978MAD269
 Rationale of the rule:
 It protects the decree-holder from unfair delay.
 Protects the judgment-debtor if there is a genuine counterclaim or issue pending.
 Prevents multiple and parallel execution proceedings.
 Conditions:
 Two simultaneous proceedings must exist in the same court: 1. Execution proceedings by the decree-holder.
2. A pending suit by the judgment-debtor against the decree-holder.
 The suit must be in the same court where execution is being sought ("such court").
 Imp Points to Note:
 The power to stay execution is discretionary, not mandatory. The court must exercise this discretion
judicially, in the interest of justice and, not arbitrarily or mechanically.
 A party should not be deprived of the fruits of a valid decree unless: 1. There are strong and cogent
reasons, and 2. The pending suit raises a substantial and bona fide claim.
 Stay, if granted, should be on suitable terms (e.g., security) to avoid making the earlier decree ineffective
due to delay.
SHAUKAT HUSSAIN VS SMT BHUNESHWARI DEVI
(1972) 2 SCC 731
 Bhuneshwari Devi, the decree-holder, obtained a money decree against the appellants (judgment-
debtors) in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Gaya, exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction in 1939.
 The decree was transferred for execution to the court of Munsif 1st at Gaya because the decree-
holder wanted to proceed against the judgment-debtors' immovable property.
 The judgment-debtors filed Title Suit No. 104/67 in the Munsif's court to set aside the original decree,
claiming it was fraudulent, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
 Simultaneously, they filed two applications in the Munsif's court: 1. one for an injunction against the
decree-holder from proceeding with execution, and 2. another for staying execution proceedings under
Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C..
 Two ex-parte orders were passed on May 11, 1962, including a stay. Due to the judgment-debtors'
failure to file requisites, the injunction was recalled on June 2, 1962.
 The decree-holder, unaware of two separate orders, informed the executing court on April 10, 1963,
that the stay was recalled and requested to proceed with execution. The executing court then vacated
the stay and called for further steps
 The property was attached, and a sale proclamation issued. The judgment-debtors
later sought clarification from the Munsif's court, which on July 26, 1963, stated the
stay was still subsisting but modified it, conditioning the stay on depositing Rs. 550/-
security by August 5, 1963.
 Security was not furnished, and the property was sold on August 6, 1963, to the
decree-holder.
 One judgment-debtor filed an objection to set aside the sale. The Munsif set aside
the sale, which was upheld by the Subordinate Judge in appeal, on the ground that the
sale proclamation was issued while the stay was in existence.
 The High Court overturned these decisions, holding that the Munsif's court was
incompetent to stay the execution of the decree, making the stay order null and void.
Therefore, the attachment, proclamation, and sale were deemed legal. The High Court
also noted that even if the stay was valid, it had ended on August 5, 1963, making the
August 6, 1963 sale valid
Main Holding - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the Munsif's court had no
competence or jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C. (as per the old un-amended provision) to stay the
execution of the decree.
 Consequently, the stay order granted by the Munsif was null and void, and the sale of the property was
legal and could not be set aside on the ground that execution proceeded during a valid stay order. The
appeal by the judgment-debtors failed.
Reasoning -
 The Supreme Court analyzed Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C. (which states that a court may stay execution of
a decree "Where a suit is pending in any court against the holder of a decree of such court”)
 The key interpretation revolved around the words "such court." The Court emphasized that this means the
decree must have been passed by the same court in which the suit is pending and the execution is sought to
be stayed.
 In this case, the decree sought to be executed was not passed by the Munsif 1st Court Gaya, but by the
Subordinate Judge, Gaya (exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction). Therefore, the Munsif's court lacked
jurisdiction to issue the stay order under Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C..
 The Court contrasted this with Rule 26 of Order XXI, which provides a limited power to a transferee
court to stay execution to allow the judgment-debtor to apply to the original or appellate court. Rule
29 deals with a "different situation" where the decree originated from the "such court"
 The Court rejected the argument based on Section 37 C.P.C. (defining "court which
passed a decree") and Section 42 C.P.C. (powers of transferee court), which some High
Courts (like Calcutta in Sarada Kripa v. The Comilla Union Bank) had used to argue that a
transferee court could be considered the "court which passed the decree" for the purposes
of Order XXI Rule 29.
 The Supreme Court clarified that the original court does not lose jurisdiction merely
because the decree is transferred for execution. The court which passed the decree
retains control over its execution, can withdraw the decree, and remains the competent
court for execution purposes.
 The Court expressly held that the reasoning in Sarada Kripa v. Camilla Union Bank was
erroneous and affirmed the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Inayat Reg v.
Umrao Beg and several other High Courts that a transferee court cannot stay execution
under Order XXI Rule 29 if the decree was not passed by it (position of law is different
after the amendment).
 Thus, since the Subordinate Judge's court was still in existence and was the actual court
that passed the decree, the Munsif's court, as a transferee court, was incompetent to issue
the stay order under Order XXI Rule 29
MODE OF EXECUTION
Section 51. Powers of Court to enforce execution. Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court
may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree
(a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed;
(b) by attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property;
(c) by arrest and detention in prison 1[for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and
detention is permissible under that section];
(d) by appointing a receiver; or
(e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require :
2[Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless,
after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for
reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied--
(a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree,--
(i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or
(ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part
of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property, or
(b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree the means to pay the amount of the decree or some
substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or
(c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account.
Explanation. In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of
account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from
attachment in execution of the decree.]
Delivery of Property
 When it involves movable property, and the decree is for specific goods (not money), execution can be
carried out by seizure and delivery, arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor, attachment and sale of
property, or a combination of these.
 However, this is only applicable when the property is in the possession of the judgment-debtor; if a
third party possesses it, Rule 31 does not apply.
 In the case of immovable property, execution is governed by Rules 35 and 36. If the property is in the
possession of the judgment-debtor or someone bound by the decree, the court delivers actual possession to
the decree-holder. If it is held by a tenant or a person not bound by the decree, the court grants symbolic
possession by affixing a copy of the warrant and publicly announcing the substance of the decree.
 For joint possession or in cases where access is denied, court officers can take necessary steps, including
forced entry (after reasonable warning), to place the decree-holder in possession. Those bound by the
decree may include sub-tenants, benamidars, or anyone legally connected to the judgment-debtor. The
court may also award mesne profits to compensate for wrongful possession.
Attachment and Sale
 The court may order attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property within its jurisdiction.
 The two terms are read disjunctively - attachment is not a prerequisite for a valid sale, though omission may
be an irregularity. Rule 54 deals specifically with the procedure for attachment of immovable property and
aims to inform the judgment-debtor to prevent unauthorized transfers.
Arrest and detention
 Arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor is another mode of execution of decrees especially in
money decrees.
 However, this is not automatic. The court must give the judgment-debtor an opportunity to be heard and
must record reasons in writing if it finds that the debtor is trying to evade execution (e.g., by absconding or
hiding assets), has the means but refuses to pay, or owes money in a fiduciary capacity.
 These safeguards are mandatory and ensure that detention is not used as punishment but as a tool to
enforce genuine obligations.

Appointment of a receiver
 Another mode of execution under Section 51(d).
 This is an equitable and discretionary remedy, allowed only when other standard methods of execution
are ineffective.
 A strong case must be made by the decree-holder to show that appointing a receiver will benefit both
parties and that the decree is likely to be satisfied within a reasonable time.
 This remedy cannot be used to circumvent statutory protections; for instance, property like provident fund
balances, which are exempt from attachment, cannot be taken over by a receiver.
 Notably, a receiver can even be appointed before property is attached or for property located outside
the court's territorial limits. The process must comply with provisions under Order 40 Rule 1.
Section 54. Partition of estate or separation of share.
Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of
revenue to the Government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate,
the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or
any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance
with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition, or the separate
possession of shares, of such estates.
To summarize –
Modes of Execution (Section 51)
The law provides various methods to enforce a decree (these are general methods - their conditions and
limitations are laid down in other parts of the Code):
 Delivery of property,
 Attachment and sale of property,
 Arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor,
 Appointment of a receiver,
 Partition of property, or
 Any other manner as needed based on the relief granted
2. Decree-holder’s Choice
A decree-holder has the freedom to choose the mode of execution. This choice is subject to 1. Legal conditions
and restrictions under the CPC and 2. The court’s discretion.
3. Simultaneous Execution
Section 51 allows multiple modes of execution at the same time (e.g., attaching both movable and immovable
property together). Courts generally should not restrict the decree-holder from using more than one method.
However, the court retains discretion and must use it judicially. Courts can deny simultaneous execution if, for
example, one method is enough to recover the money.
QUESTIONS!
1. If someone owes you money and you have a decree, can you ask the court to go after their
property and their person at the same time?
2. You won a case to get back your pet parrot. The judgment-debtor hides it. How can the Court help
you?
3. After 6 months of not returning your bike (despite a decree), can you sell the other party’s TV which
was attached by the Court?
4. Can the court forcefully make your ex (husband or wife) come back to live with you if you win a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
5. What happens if someone keeps ignoring an injunction order?
6. Courts must execute a restitution of conjugal rights decree no matter what. True or false?
7. You win a case requiring someone to sign a sale deed. They refuse. Can the court sign it for them?
8. You win a house back in court. The other side won’t leave. Can the court help you move in?
9. What if furniture is inside the house? Can the court help move it too?
10. If the person in the house is not resisting, will the court still use force to throw them out?
Cross-Decrees and Cross-Claims
 Rules 18 to 20 of Order 21
 Provide for the set-off of amounts when two parties have decrees or claims against each other. In the
case of cross-decrees (Rules 18 and 20), if both parties hold decrees for payment of money against
one another in separate suits, the court can offset these decrees.
 If the amounts are equal, both decrees are treated as satisfied in full, and no execution is allowed. If
the amounts are unequal, the smaller decree is deemed fully satisfied, and execution is permitted only
for the balance on the larger decree.
 For instance, if A holds a decree against B for ₹10,000 and B holds a decree against A for ₹5,000,
B’s decree is considered satisfied, and A may execute his decree for ₹5,000 only.
 The main objective of this rule is to avoid unnecessary litigation and duplicative execution
proceedings. Set-off is not discretionary, nor limited to cases arising from the same transaction.
 These provisions apply not only to ordinary suits but also to mortgage suits and possibly others, even
if not strictly covered under Rule 18.
 For a decree to qualify for set-off, several conditions must be met: (1) both must be for payment of
money, (2) they must have been passed in separate suits, (3) each party must be both a decree-holder
and judgment-debtor in the other suit, (4) parties must hold the same legal character in both suits, (5)
both decrees must be executable by the same court, and (6) execution applications must be made in
respect of both decrees.
 The test to determine whether decrees are cross-decrees depends on their substance, not form.
 On the other hand, cross-claims (Rule 19) deal with rival money claims under the same
decree.
 If both claims are of equal value, the decree is treated as fully satisfied, and no
execution is allowed.
 If one claim is larger, execution can proceed for the difference.
 The purpose of this rule is also to prevent dual execution and ensure that a party
cannot execute a decree for a lesser amount while owing a larger amount under the same
decree. This is based on equity, aiming to balance the obligations and entitlements of both
parties within a single decree.
 To invoke this rule, it must be shown that both parties are asserting competing claims
under the same decree. The relevant date for assessing satisfaction is the date of the
decree itself.
ARREST AND DETENTION
Objective of Arrest and Detention provisions in the CPC:
 In the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470, the Supreme
Court said that in the execution of a decree for payment of money, the executing
court may order the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor - However, since the
primary objective is to ensure payment, detention does not discharge the debtor from the
obligation to pay.
 For example, in other laws such as Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (relating to maintenance), imprisonment serves only as a means to
compel compliance.
“Most importantly, the purpose of sending a person to jail must be understood as being a
manner, procedure or device, for the satisfaction of the liability. Arrest and detention is only
to coerce compliance. The liability to pay would stand discharged only by actual payment of
the amount due. Remaining in jail would not discharge the liability to pay.”
When Can Arrest and Detention Be Ordered?

 A decree for payment of money can be executed through the arrest and
detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. (Rule 30)
 In cases involving a decree for specific performance of a contract or for the
enforcement of an injunction, the court may also order the arrest and detention of the
judgment-debtor to compel compliance. (Rule 32)
 If decree is passed against a corporation, it may be executed (with the court’s
permission) by seeking the civil detention of its directors or officers responsible for
disobedience of the decree. (Rule 32)
Who Cannot Be Arrested in Execution of a Decree? (As per Sections 56, 58, 135, and 135-A of
the CPC)
 Women (Section 56)
 Judicial Officers – while going to, presiding in, or returning from their courts. (Section 135 (1))
 Legal Professionals and their Witnesses, including: (Section 135 (2))
 Parties to a case,
 Their pleaders, mukhtars, revenue agents, and recognised agents, and
 Witnesses acting under a court summons,
 When they are on their way to, attending, or returning from court.

 Members of Legislative Bodies – during the session of the legislature. (Section 135A)
 Persons Exempted by State Government – if their arrest is considered likely to cause danger or
inconvenience to the public. (Section 55 (2))
 Judgment Debtor, if the decretal amount is ₹2,000 or less. (Section 58 (1A))
 Note - Order 21 Rule 21: court may refuse simultaneous execution at the same time against the
person and property of the judgment debtor.
PROCEDURE FOR ARREST AND DETENTION OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR
 A judgment debtor may be arrested at any time, on any day, in execution of a decree. After arrest, the
person must be produced before the court as soon as practicable. (Section 55 and Order 21 Rule 38)
 Restrictions on Entering Dwelling Houses (Section 55)
 No dwelling house may be entered for arrest after sunset or before sunrise.
 No outer door of a house may be broken open, unless:
 The house is occupied by the judgment debtor, and he refuses or prevents entry.
 If the room is occupied by a pardanashin woman, and she is not the judgment debtor, she must be
given reasonable time and privacy to withdraw before entry.
 Subsistence Allowance - A judgment debtor cannot be arrested unless the decree-holder deposits a
subsistence allowance with the court, as fixed by the court. (Order 21, Rule 39; Section 57 – State Govt to fix
scales)
 Payment Upon Arrest - If the judgment debtor pays the decretal amount and any related costs to the
arresting officer, he must be released immediately.
 Affidavit and Burden of Proof - The decree holder must file an affidavit or state the grounds for arrest in
the execution application (O. 21, Rule 11A). The burden on the decree-holder is very high. He must prove that
the conditions under the proviso to Section 51 CPC (such as refusal to pay despite having the means) are
satisfied.
 Women (Section 56), Minors (Section 50) and, Legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor
(Section 52) cannot be arrested or detained in execution of a money decree
NOTICE BEFORE ARREST – Order 21 Rules 37 & 40 CPC

Requirement of Notice (Rule 37, Order 21)


 When a money decree is sought to be executed by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor,
the court must first issue a notice, not a warrant.
 The notice calls upon the judgment-debtor to appear before the court and show cause why he
should not be committed to civil prison – this protects honest debtors who are genuinely unable to
pay due to circumstances beyond their control.

Principle of Natural Justice


 The requirement of notice upholds the basic principle of natural justice, that no person should be
condemned unheard. It also reflects the importance of human dignity, protected under Article 21 of
the Constitution, along with Articles 14 and 19.
 Therefore, any order of arrest or detention made without issuing notice or without giving an
opportunity to be heard is invalid in law.
 Courts must not issue notices mechanically. They are expected to apply judicial mind keeping in
view the constitutional values of fairness and dignity.
What are the additional safeguards with regard to arrest in execution of a money decree?
Section 51. Powers of Court to enforce execution.
(…..)
2[Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not
be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not
be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied--
(a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the
decree,--
(i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or
(ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed,
or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property,
or
(b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree. the means to pay the amount of
the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay
the same, or
(c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to
account.
Explanation. In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there
shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for
the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree.]
What Happens After Notice? (Rule 40)
 If the judgment-debtor appears in response to the notice and the court is satisfied that he is unable
to pay, the court may reject the arrest application.
 If the judgment-debtor appears but fails to show sufficient cause, the court may, subject to CPC
provisions, order detention in civil prison. (In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
upheld the legality of detention ordered after giving adequate opportunity to the debtor.)
 Objective of the Safeguard - The combined reading of Order 21 Rules 37 and 40, along
with Section 51 CPC, aims to: Protect honest but poor or indigent debtors, prevent misuse of arrest
powers, and ensure only those who willfully avoid payment are detained.

 When the Debtor Does Not Appear - If the judgment-debtor fails to appear after receiving the
notice, and the decree-holder requests, the court shall issue a warrant for arrest. (Rule 37, 38 of
Order 21)
 Disclosure of Assets - If a money decree remains unsatisfied for 30 days, the court may, on the
decree-holder's application, direct the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit of assets. Non-
compliance with such an order may result in detention up to 3 months. (Rule 41)
 Opportunity to Judgment-Debtor to Satisfy the Decree - The proviso to Rule 40(3) of Order 21
CPC provides the judgment-debtor with an opportunity to satisfy the decree before an order of
detention is made.
Power and Duty of the Court in Ordering Arrest and Detention
 If judgment debtor pays the sum due to the officer arresting, such officer shall at once release him
(section 55).
 Under section 55(3) – once the judgment debtor is arrested and brought before the court, the Court is
bound to inform him that he may apply to be declared an insolvent.
 The law relating to arrest and detention in execution of a decree balances the rights of both parties.
It protects the decree-holder’s interest, ensuring the judgment-debtor doesn’t evade payment if he has
the means.
 However, the court must not order detention merely because the debtor failed to pay. There must be:
 Evidence of bad faith or mala fide intention
 A wilful refusal to pay, despite having the means
 Conduct amounting to dishonest disowning of the obligation
 Above mentioned principles were laid down in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin.
 Justice Krishna Iyer observed: To cast a person into prison merely because of poverty and inability
to pay is unconstitutional. Poverty is not a crime. Detaining someone for inability to pay, without
proving willful failure despite means, violates Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
 Recording of Reasons for Detention - The court is mandatorily required to record
reasons whenever it orders detention of a judgment-debtor.
 Failure to record reasons is a serious legal error and can render the order invalid.
 This requirement applies to every instance of such an order and is a vital part of due
process.

 Period of Detention – Section 58 CPC


Depends on the amount involved:

Decretal Amount Maximum Detention Period

More than Rs. 5,000 Up to 3 months

Between Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000 Up to 6 weeks

Rs. 2,000 or less No detention allowed


Release of Judgment-Debtor (Sections 58 & 59 CPC)
A judgment-debtor may be released from civil prison under the following circumstances:
 On payment of the amount mentioned in the warrant of detention.
 When the decree is otherwise fully satisfied.
 On request made by the decree-holder. If the decree-holder fails to pay the subsistence allowance, as
required. Note: In such cases, the release does not discharge the debt, but the judgment-debtor cannot be
rearrested for the same execution.
 On grounds of illness of the judgment-debtor. (Section 59)

Re-arrest of Judgment-Debtor
As a general rule, a judgment-debtor once released cannot be re-arrested in execution of the same decree.
However, there are exceptions - re-arrest is allowed if the release occurred due to:
 A mistake by jail authorities, or
 Failure of the decree-holder to deposit the subsistence allowance, or
 Temporary release on medical grounds (illness).
Note - Total period of detention cannot exceed the maximum period prescribed under S. 58.
Question –

Why is a distinction made in the Code with regard to execution of regular decrees and
money decrees?
SHYAM SINGH VS COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
UP (1993) SUPP 1 SCC 693
FACTS - In 1972, Shyam Singh obtained a loan of Rs. 34,000 from SBI to purchase a tractor. The tractor
was hypothecated with the Bank, and Shyam Singh’s 22 acres of land were mortgaged for the loan. Shyam
Singh paid Rs. 11,500 towards the installments and interest.
 In July 1977, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings through the Tehsildar for an outstanding amount of
Rs. 44,872.60. On December 16, 1977, the Tehsildar ordered the attachment of the tractor, which was
taken from Shyam Singh's custody on December 26, 1977. The recovery proceedings showed the estimated
value of the tractor as Rs. 46,146.36, which was more than the total amount due.
 Around July 24, 1981, a new proceeding was initiated under Section 11A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit
Act, 1973, (Section 11A allows the Bank to forward a certificate to the Collector, enabling the amount to
be recovered as arrears of land revenue for the recovery of the same amount) - leading to a notice for
the sale of the mortgaged 22 acres of land. Shyam Singh objected, arguing that the sale proceeds of the
tractor should be adjusted first before proceeding with the sale of the agricultural land, given the tractor's
estimated value - this objection was rejected by both the Revenue Authorities and the High Court.
 Note - At the time of the Supreme Court appeal, it was not disclosed what happened to the attached
tractor or if any amount was recovered from its sale
 The Supreme Court partially allowed Shyam Singh's appeal, and modified the High Court's
decision.
 The Supreme Court directed the respondents (the Bank and the authorities) to first ascertain the
amount that has been recovered or is deemed to have been recovered from the tractor - only if the
total amount due to the Bank has not been fully realized from the tractor, would the respondents
then be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the 22 acres of mortgaged land.
 The lands were deemed to be under attachment in view of the steps already taken under Section
279(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Reasons:
 The Court acknowledged that the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, prescribes three distinct
procedures for loan recovery: 1. Section 10-B for movable property (like the tractor), 2. Section 11
for mortgaged immovable property, and 3. Section 11-A, which allows the Bank to forward a
certificate to the Collector for recovery as arrears of land revenue, attracting processes under
Section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
 These processes under Section 279 can include attachment and sale of movable or immovable
property, and even arrest
 While a creditor generally has the right to pursue different modes of recovery
separately or simultaneously, and that there is no statutory bar against concurrent
execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), this right is not "unfettered,
unrestricted and absolute".
Drawing parallels with Section 51 and Order 21, Rule 21 of the CPC, the Court stated
that the discretion to order simultaneous execution must be exercised in a judicial manner.
Courts can (in special facts and circumstances) direct the creditor not to sell further
property if the amount due has already been or is likely to be realized by a mode
already opted. (Note here – mentioning of the The Padrauma Raj Krishna Sugar Works
Ltd. v. The Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P case)
 In the current case, the tractor had been admittedly attached and taken into custody
by the Tehsildar under Section 10-B of the Act. Crucially, the recovery proceedings
themselves indicated that the estimated value of the tractor (Rs. 46,146.36) was more
than the total amount due from Shyam Singh.
 A significant factor was that neither before the High Court nor the Supreme Court was
it disclosed what happened to the attached tractor or whether any amount had been
recovered from its sale, as required by Section 10-B(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Credit
Act, 1973.
 The Bank's right to pursue different recovery modes does not extend to selling
different properties under different procedures without first ascertaining whether the
amount due has already been realized from the property already attached. It would be
unjust to proceed with the sale of land if the debt could be covered by the asset already
seized, especially when that asset's estimated value exceeded the debt.
PADRAUNA RAJKRISHNA SUGAR WORKS LTD VS LAND
REFORMS COMMISSIONER 1969 (1) SCC 485
The case involved Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works Ltd. ('the Company'), which manufactured sugar and
supplied electricity.
 By 1954, the Company faced severe financial difficulties. Its principal liabilities by July 1955 amounted
to Rs. 8,38,176-13-0, comprising income tax dues, sugarcane cess and arrears of cane price. These
amounts were recoverable as arrears of land revenue due to provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922, the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938, and the Co-operative Societies Act 1912.
 The Government of U.P. appointed the Collector as the Authorised Controller of the Company on July
14, 1954. On August 8, 1955, the Land Reforms Commissioner sanctioned the Collector's proposal to sell
the Company's property to realize the total amount of Rs. 8,38,176-13-0.
 The Company's movables (tools, plant, spare parts, furniture) were valued at Rs. 7,64,817/- and its
lands and factory at Rs. 23,75,000/-. A sale proclamation was issued on October 4, 1955, with the sale
fixed for November 8, 1955.
 Initially, only movables were offered for sale, with the highest bid being Rs. 2,75,000/-. The Collector
then sold the immovable property for Rs. 23,50,000/-, which was accepted. Subsequently, the movables
were also sold for Rs. 2,75,000/-. The purchaser of both lots was Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd.
 The Company challenged the sale of its property, claiming procedural irregularities
under land revenue recovery laws. Their initial plea to the Commissioner and a subsequent
writ petition to the Allahabad High Court were both dismissed.
 The key legal issue was whether the Collector was required to first exhaust specific
recovery methods (like selling movables) before auctioning immovable property under
Section 286(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
 Supreme Court’s holding - The Supreme Court finally held that the sale of the
Company's property was valid and not liable to be set aside, dismissing the Company's
appeal.
Reasons:
 Interpretation of Recovery Powers for "Miscellaneous Dues": When sums like income-
tax, sugarcane cess, or cane price are made "recoverable as arrears of land revenue" by
other statutes (in this case - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act,
1938, Co-operative Societies Act 1912), the Collector is not bound to follow a specific
sequence of recovery processes as might be implied for traditional land revenue arrears
under Sections 279 and 286(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
 While Section 286(2) of the UP Act allows recovery from immovable property for
sums "not due in respect of any specific land," it does not mandate exhausting
processes (a) to (e) of Section 279 (like selling movables or arrest) before resorting
to the sale of immovable property (f). The Collector is competent to resort to any
process prescribed by Section 279 in aid of recovery of such dues.
 Restrictions on the Collector's power to recover dues under other statutes arise from
the statute that is the source of the liability, not from the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1951 , which merely sets out the recovery processes.
 Specifically for income-tax dues, Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,
grants the Collector powers similar to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC), 1908. The CPC does not require selling movables or arresting the defaulter
before attaching immovable property; it allows for simultaneous execution.
 To interpret Section 286(2) of the U.P. Act as imposing such a restriction would
effectively amend the substantive provisions of Acts like the Income-tax Act and the
CPC, which the U.P. Legislature is incompetent to do
 While one High Court judge did observe that the Collector acted in violation of Section
286(2) by selling immovable property before movable property, he also concluded that
the sale could not be set aside because substantial injury was not shown to have been
caused. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed that the sale was not vitiated on the ground
of any material irregularity or mistake.
 The Supreme Court rejected the Company’s additional arguments, including claims
about sugar stock possession, unnecessary sale of movables, and being blocked from
challenging the sale due to the buyer's official role - finding these unproven, not properly
raised earlier, or hypothetical.
 Although the Court upheld the sale's legality, it criticized the Collector for selling
movables unnecessarily and ignoring the Income-tax Officer’s stay request, noting this
caused significant loss to the Company.
 Each party was directed to bear its own legal costs.
JOLLY GEORGE VARGHESE VS THE BANK OF
COCHIN (1980) 2 SCC 360

“This litigation has secured special leave from us because it involves a profound issue of
constitutional and international law and offers a challenge to the nascent champions of
human rights in India whose politicised pre-occupation has forsaken the civil debtor
whose personal liberty is imperilled by the judicial process itself, thanks to Section 51
(Proviso) and Order 21, Rule 37, Civil Procedure Code. Here is an appeal by judgment-
debtors- the appellants-whose personal freedom is in peril because a court warrant for
arrest and detention in the civil prison is chasing them for non-payment of an amount
due to a bank-the respondent, which has ripened into a decree and has not yet been
discharged. Is such deprivation of liberty illegal?”
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
Facts:
 The appellants (judgment-debtors) owed a decree amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to The Bank of Cochin
(respondent bank), along with other decrees totaling over Rs. 7 lakhs.
 Despite their immovable properties being attached for sale and a Receiver appointed for their
management, the executing court issued a warrant for their arrest and detention in civil prison under
Section 51 and Order 21, Rule 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for non-payment.
 Imp – no investigation had been conducted by the executing court into the judgment-debtors' current
ability to clear the debts or any mala fide refusal on their part to discharge them.
 The High Court had summarily dismissed the judgment-debtors' revision against the arrest order,
leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Holding:
 The Supreme Court set aside the judgment that allowed the arrest warrant. It directed the executing
court to re-adjudicate de novo the means of the judgment-debtors to discharge the decree in light of
the comprehensive interpretation provided by the Court.
 The core of the holding is that imprisonment for debt is only permissible if there is an element of
dishonesty, bad faith, or wilful refusal to pay despite having the means, and not merely due to
genuine inability to pay arising from poverty
Interpretation of Section 51 CPC - Section 51 of the CPC allows for execution of a decree by
arrest and detention in prison. However, it heavily emphasized the Proviso to Section 51, which
states that detention in prison for a money decree shall not be ordered unless specific conditions
are met, such as the debtor likely absconding, committing acts of bad faith regarding property, or
having the means to pay but refusing or neglecting to do so.
 The Court stated that "simple default to discharge is not enough" for imprisonment. It held that
there must be "some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or
recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial
part of it".
 The Court specifically addressed the phrase "has had since the date of the decree, the means to
pay" in Section 51(b). It clarified that this cannot be superficially read to allow detention if a
debtor once had means but is now penniless without intervening dishonesty. Such an interpretation
would be "inhuman".
 The Court concurred with the Law Commission's view that if a debtor "once had the means but
now has not, or if he has money now on which there are other pressing claims, it is bad in law to
arrest and confine him in jail so as to coerce him into payment".
Impact of International Law (Article 11 ICCPR): The Court considered Article 11 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states: "No one shall be
imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation". While
acknowledging that international treaties do not automatically become municipal law, the Court
stressed that domestic laws should be interpreted in accordance with a State's international
obligations. This international principle served to "inform judicial institutions and inspire legislative
action" within member States - The Court noted that its construction of Section 51 CPC "has the
flavour of Article 11"
Constitutional Mandate (Article 21):
 The Court linked the issue to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
"Protection of life and personal liberty" and mandates that any deprivation must follow a
procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable - "to cast a person in prison because of his poverty
and consequent inability to meet his contractual liability is appalling" and "flagrantly violative
of Article 21".
 Such incarceration is permissible only if there is proof of "wilful failure to pay in spite of his
sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims".
 By interpreting Section 51 CPC to require a finding of dishonesty or wilful refusal despite
means, the Court harmonized the provision with both Article 11 of the ICCPR and Article 21 of
the Constitution - preventing the provision from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Need for Re-adjudication:
 Given that the judgment-debtors' properties were under attachment and a Receiver
appointed, rendering their previous financial status obsolete, and given the absence of any
investigation into their current means or mala fide refusal, the Court deemed it necessary for
the executing court to conduct a fresh inquiry.
 This inquiry must specifically examine their "present means... vis a vis the present pressures of
their indebtedness, or alternatively whether they have had the ability to pay but have improperly
evaded or postponed doing so or otherwise dishonestly committed acts of bad faith respecting
their assets"
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA VS UNION OF INDIA
(2014) 8 SCC 470
Origin of Dispute: The case stemmed from two Sahara Group companies, Sahara India Real Estate
Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL), which had
illegally collected thousands of crores of rupees from investors through Optionally Fully Convertible
Debentures (OFCDs).
 Pattern of Defiance - From 2009 onwards, Subrata Roy Sahara, as the promoter, and the companies
exhibited a "demeanour of defiance" and "rebellious behaviour" towards regulatory authorities (SEBI) and
various courts, including the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), the High Court, and the Supreme Court itself.
 They stonewalled attempts to gather information by SEBI. Information provided for evaluation was
deemed "seriously doubtful," "totally unrealistic," and potentially "fictitious, concocted and made up".
 Assertions of having refunded thousands of crores by cash were rejected as "farcical" and "outrageous,"
lacking authentic supporting material or banking transactions, despite the SEBI (FTM) and SAT orders
explicitly requiring refunds via demand draft or pay order.
 The companies used "dilatory tactics" to delay compliance.
 After an initial deposit of Rs. 5,120 crores on December 5, 2012, "not a single paisa has been deposited"
for approximately 17 months, despite the total amount due swelling to Rs. 36,608 crores
Court's Efforts to Secure Compliance: The Supreme Court provided "sufficient
opportunities" and a "long rope" to the contemnors.
◦ The Court conducted no less than 35 hearings after contempt proceedings began and
before the detention order of March 4, 2014.
◦ It attempted to "cajole" compliance, exploring "intermediary means" like proposals to
secure the amount through unencumbered immovable properties.
However, these proposals "turned out to be ploys to sidetrack and derail the process of
law" and were unilaterally withdrawn or found unacceptable.
◦ Sequentially harsher orders were issued, including restricting contemnors from leaving
the country and freezing all movable and immovable properties of the Sahara Group.
Detention Order: On March 4, 2014, the Court, "fully convinced that the contemnors have
not complied with our directions," ordered the arrest and detention of Subrata Roy Sahara
and two other directors in judicial custody at Delhi. This was done in exercise of powers
conferred under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, with the sole purpose of
ensuring compliance of its previous orders
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld its order dated March 4, 2014, as valid and legally sound,
dismissing Subrata Roy Sahara's writ petition challenging his detention.
Reasons:
 The Court found the detention order valid, stating that arrest and detention is a permissible and
recognized procedure for enforcing financial liabilities under both the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
 The Court held that the order was not passed in violation of natural justice, as Subrata Roy Sahara and
the contemnors were given ample notice, numerous opportunities to be heard, filed affidavits, and even
received a personal oral hearing on March 4, 2014.
 The Court rejected the plea for recusal due to alleged bias from the Bench, characterizing it as a tactic
born of "frustration" from being "cornered". It affirmed its duty to decide cases "without fear or favour,
affection or ill will".
 The Court conclusively rejected the Sahara Group's claim of having already refunded most of the
OFCD amounts to investors by cash, finding it unsubstantiated and legally untenable given prior rulings
and the lack of verifiable proof.
 The Court held that the writ petition itself was not maintainable. It clarified that a fresh writ petition
under Article 32 cannot be used to challenge a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, especially
when no jurisdictional error or natural justice violation is proven.
 Judicial Authority and Rule of Law: The judgment strongly asserted the "sacred obligation" of the
Supreme Court to compel obedience and observance of its orders to prevent a "breakdown of
constitutional functioning" and "mayhem"
On Jurisdiction and Power to Detain:
 Court’s power to pass the detention order derived from Articles 129 (Supreme Court as a
Court of Record with contempt powers) and 142 (power to do "complete justice" and enforce
orders) of the Constitution.
 Since the SEBI Act (under which the original orders were passed) did not provide an execution
mechanism, the Supreme Court's inherent and constitutional powers were necessary to enforce its
directions and prevent the orders from becoming a nullity.
 The argument that arrest for a money decree was "unknown to law" was refuted by detailed
references to Sections 51, 55, and 58 of the CPC, which permit civil arrest and detention for debt
under specific conditions (e.g., absconding, dishonest transfer of property, or having means to pay
but refusing). It also cited Sections 125, 128, 357, 421, and 431 of the CrPC, which allow
arrest/imprisonment to enforce maintenance payments or compensation.
 The Court determined that the conditions akin to Section 51 of CPC were indeed met: Subrata
Roy was likely to abscond (evidenced by previous travel restrictions), and he had the means to pay
but neglected or refused to do so (evidenced by Sahara Group's vast acknowledged assets and
lack of further deposits). His explanation for vast cash transactions was seen as indicative of
"dishonest transfers" or "bad faith"
On Natural Justice:
 The Court meticulously documented the extensive procedural fairness afforded: Subrata Roy
was served with applications explicitly seeking his arrest and detention, he filed a personal
affidavit responding to these applications, numerous orders restricted his travel and froze
properties, putting him on clear notice of the gravity of the situation, and he was specifically
ordered to appear on Feb 26, 2014, and his exemption request was denied, leading to the non-
bailable warrant and subsequent arrest on March 4, 2014. Crucially, on March 4, 2014, Subrata
Roy Sahara was repeatedly heard by the Court until he had nothing further to state.
On Bias:
 The Court dismissed allegations of bias as "frustration, arising out of being cornered into a
situation, wherefrom there is no escape". It emphasized that its role was enforcement of final
orders, not re-adjudication of merits or compromise.
 The Court pointed to its own unilateral relaxation of bail conditions (offering interim bail for
Rs. 10,000 crores, less than a third of the amount due) as proof against having a "closed mind" or
being "unrelenting". It also stated that its "commitment" was to the Government of India (as the
ultimate recipient of unidentifiable investor funds), which did not constitute bias
On Redemption Theory:
 The Court found Sahara's "redemption theory" to be a "tactic... to defeat the process of
law". It noted that the claim of cash refunds was unsupported by banking transactions, was
contrary to SEBI/SAT orders, and was inconsistent with the maturity periods of the OFCDs.
 Furthermore, the auditors' certificates only confirmed cheque-based refunds (a small
percentage), but were "silent on the redemptions made by way of cash," further undermining
Sahara's claims.
 Legally, the Court stated this defense was "no longer available" to Sahara, as it had been
rejected by a three-Judge Bench in its December 5, 2012 order, thus attaining finality.
Post Script on Abuse of Judicial Process:
 The Court expressed "considerable concern" over the "grossly afflicted" Indian judicial
system due to "frivolous litigation" and "abuse of the judicial process”.
 It lamented the "hundreds of Judge hours" consumed by this single Sahara Group litigation.
 It strongly suggested that the legislature consider introducing a "Code of Compulsory Costs"
to deter "senseless and ill-considered claims" and ensure that litigants who lose after persistent
and baseless litigation compensate the successful party for their time and expense
ATTACHMENT (SECTIONS 60 TO 64 AND ORDER 21
RULES 41 TO 59)
 Attachment is a process by which a court , at the request of a decree holder, designates
specific property owned by the judgment debtor, to be transferred to the decree holder, or
sold for the benefit of the decree holder.
 The primary object of attachment is to give notice to the judgment debtor not to alienate the
property to anyone as also to the general public not to purchase or deal with the property
attached. Attachment is not a condition precedent for sale.
 Section 64 provides that any private transfer or delivery of property attached shall be
void. However, the section does not apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property
attached made in pursuance of a contract entered into and registered before the attachment.
 Section 60 provides a non-exhaustive list of all properties liable to attachment that are
“saleable”; it also provides a list of items that cannot be attached and sold. Under section
60(1-A) no person can waive the benefit of these exemptions from attachment. Section 61
provides that the State Government may exempt agricultural produce from attachment.
 Section 62 imposes safeguards to be observed whilst attaching property.
 Section 63 provides that if the same property is under attachment in execution of decrees of
more than 1 court, then the Court entitled to deal with the property shall be the court of the
highest grade or the court which first attached the property.

You might also like