Executing Court Must Look Beyond the Decree To Uphold Justice – Allahabad High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 47 CPC in Long-Standing Property Dispute

“Absence of Property Markings in Map Does Not Defeat Possession Decree If Decree and Judgment Are Clear” –  In a significant ruling on the execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the maintainability of an execution application and the identifiability of property under a decree passed nearly six decades ago. The Court upheld the execution of a 1965 possession and demolition decree, reiterating that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice, particularly when the decree and judgment are clear on their face.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam ruled that objections under Section 47 CPC raised by the judgment-debtors were meritless, especially given that the execution had been sought by one joint decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 15 CPC, and the remaining decree-holders had raised no objections.

“Order XXI Rule 15 CPC Is Enabling, Not Mandatory – Judgment-Debtor Cannot Object If Other Decree-Holders Do Not”

A central objection raised by the petitioners was that the execution petition was filed solely by one of the several joint decree-holders, i.e., Lorik, and that it lacked an express statement that the execution was for the benefit of all decree-holders, thereby violating Order XXI Rule 15 CPC.

Rejecting this technical objection, the Court held:

“The provisions of Rule 15 are meant to safeguard the interests of the decree-holders as also to ensure that the judgment-debtor, on making payment of the decretal sum, gets a full and valid discharge. It is not absolutely incumbent on the executing decree-holder to state in so many words that the decree is being executed for the benefit of all decree-holders.”

Justice Nigam clarified that:

“If it appears to the Court that the decree is, as a matter of fact, being executed for the benefit of all the decree-holders, it will allow the execution to proceed, even though such a statement does not find place in the application.”

The Court drew a clear distinction between money decrees and possession decrees, noting:

“In case of money decrees, a judgment-debtor’s concern may arise if one decree-holder executes the decree without accounting for the others' shares. However, for decrees of possession, such as in the present case, this distinction is immaterial, since the benefit – restoration of possession – is indivisible.”

Relying on decisions such as Panna Lal Agarwala v. Kanhaiya Lal Jain, AIR 1974 Pat 284, and Sahdeo Prasad Verma v. Dr. Raja Ram, 1984 SCC OnLine All 64, the Court reaffirmed that absence of express recital under Rule 15 is not fatal to execution, especially when no other decree-holder objects.

“Where one of the several decree-holders applies for execution and others do not object, it is not for the judgment-debtor to challenge the maintainability on that ground,” the Court added, citing Jagdeo Singh v. Babu Lal Shah, 1941 SCC OnLine Pat 298.

“Executing Court Has Duty to Ascertain Property Identity From Judgment, Not Just From Map”

A second objection raised was that points स and द, referenced in the decree and pleadings, were missing from the Ameen map, and therefore, the property was unidentifiable, rendering the decree inexecutable.

The High Court dismissed this argument as baseless, holding:

“Though in the operative portion of the judgment, the Ameen map has been made part of the decree, the absence of markings स and द in the map does not render the decree inexecutable.”

Referring to the detailed judgment and pleadings, the Court stated:

“The decree as well as the judgment is very clear as it specifically directs the petitioner to remove his construction existing at points स and द, which have been clearly described in the plaint itself.”

The Court cited Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad, (2002) 8 SCC 553, where the Supreme Court held:

“The exact description of the property may be ascertained by the executing court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. A decree of a competent Court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission.”

Further strengthening this principle, the Court also relied on Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang, (1973) 2 SCC 40, where it was held:

“An executing court cannot go behind the decree, but that does not mean it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree. It can, and in appropriate cases, must take into consideration the pleadings and proceedings leading up to the decree.”

Thus, the Court concluded that an accidental omission of boundary points in a map, which is only supplementary, cannot override the clear terms of a decree and the intention of the Court.

“Judgment-Debtors Cannot Obstruct a 60-Year-Old Decree With Frivolous Objections”

The High Court strongly disapproved of the prolonged delay in execution, noting that the decree was passed on 25 May 1965, and has withstood appellate scrutiny, becoming final in 1978.

Yet, execution proceedings filed in 1979 were stalled for decades on untenable procedural grounds.

Justice Nigam observed:

“The decree is of the year 1965 and is being obstructed by the defendants by raising frivolous objections.”

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld both the order of the executing court dated 27.10.2017 and the revisional order dated 06.09.2023, which had already rejected the Section 47 objections.

High Court Issues Timeline for Execution

To ensure that the decree does not lapse further into history without enforcement, the Court issued specific directions:

“The executing court is directed to consider and decide the execution case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025