Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"9. ... An executing court, it is well known, cannot go behind the decree. It has no jurisdiction to modify a decree. It must execute the decree as it is. A default clause contained in a compromise decree even otherwise would not be considered to be penal in nature so as to attract the provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act."

46. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in (2003) 8 SCC 289 has held that factual issues, which were either settled or not agitated in original ejectment proceedings cannot be re-agitated in execution proceedings. It was further held that Courts "should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. This type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system." Paragraph nos. 20 to 22 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

"In the present case, it is proved on the record that the shop regarding which the decree-holder was seeking possession during execution proceedings was not the one regarding which the ejectment order had been passed by the Rent Controller. Neither the description had tallied nor the boundaries tallied."

21. This observation is contrary to the finding on Issue 7 in the original proceedings. That apart, this observation is so emphatic that by this the execution petition itself was liable to be dismissed making the eviction decree infructuous. It is not the normal practice of the superior court to give a conclusive finding in matters which it remands for further consideration because after a conclusive finding there is nothing to be decided by the court to which the matter is remanded.