Executing Court Can’t Assume Role Of Trial Court; Jurisdiction Is Limited To Giving Effect To Decree: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal relating to the execution of a compromise decree passed in a Civil Suit.

The Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Executing Court is empowered to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree sought to be executed. In other words, it has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same. It is settled in law that the jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.”

AOR Anand Dilip Landge represented the Appellant, while AOR Gopal Jha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The suit land is a nonagricultural land situated in the village of Panchgani in the State of Maharashtra. The plaintiff-appellant had purchased the same. He initially sold 57R of the aforesaid land purchased by him to the defendant-respondent. Thus, retaining only 40.12R with himself. The purchaser, i.e., the defendant-respondent, sold back 6R of the said land to the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant-respondent remained with only 51R of the land out of the 57R initially purchased by him. The defendant-respondent entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid 51R of land to the plaintiff-appellant vide a registered agreement. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondent, praying for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated.

In the said suit, the parties entered into a compromise that 10R of the said land would remain a common land in common ownership of both the partners. The remaining 41R of land would be equally divided between them to the extent of 20.5R each. Accordingly, a decree would be drawn. The said decree was put into execution by both parties separately. Accordingly, the defendant-respondent became the decree holder and the plaintiff-appellant became the judgment debtor. The Executing Court varied the area allotted to the parties under the compromise decree and allotted them some different portions, thus in effect modifying the compromise decree.

The defendant-respondent’s review petition was allowed, and the modifications made by the Executing Court in the original compromise decree were further modified. The plaintiff-appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders passed by the Executing Court, the order passed on the review petition, as well as the order directing the delivery of possession. The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders passed by the Executing Court were upheld. This led to the filing of the Appeal before the Apex Court by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it stands without making any modifications therein.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure which provides for the questions to be determined by the Executing Court, the Bench reaffirmed the view that the Executing Court has to strictly conform to the decree under execution and if the decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both the parties in pith and substance, unless the decree is a nullity.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the compromise decree clearly described the portions of land falling into the shares of the parties. Therefore, the Executing Court had to ensure that both parties fulfil their obligations and exchange the land as per the decree and to see that the sale deed is executed as directed.

The Bench thus stated, “Merely for the reasons that exchange of some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off, are all immaterial. Since the Executing Court in passing the orders dated 19.07.2021 and 26.08.2021 has gone beyond its jurisdiction and instead of directing for the execution of the decree as it stands, has altered its terms by changing certain portions of the land allotted to the parties, the same are unsustainable in law.”

Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned orders, the Bench directed the Execution Court to execute the decree in its terms and tenor.

Cause Title: Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 340)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Anand Dilip Landge

Respondent: AOR Gopal Jha, Advocates Sanjeev Baliyan, Tilak Vij, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Nimish Arjaria, Sawan Datta, Shireesha Sharma, Umesh Kumar Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment