Litigant Who Is Not Vigilant Must Not Be Allowed To Claim Equity: Supreme Court Upholds Invocation Of Order 21 Rule 17 (lA) By Executing Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a litigant who is not vigilant and prompt towards his cause must not be allowed to claim equity before a Court of law, while upholding the invocation of Rule 17 (lA) of Order XXI of the CPC by the ExecutingCourt.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Chhattisgarh High Court's order that had restored execution proceedings initiated by a decree-holder after a decade, ruling that the decree-holder’s conduct displayed "lethargy and passivity throughout."

"Even if it were assumed that the facts of the case did not demand application of Rule 17 (lA) of Order XXI of the CPC by the Executing Court while dismissing the execution application, the mere conduct of the decree-holder, which had been laden with lethargy and passivity throughout, makes it unjustifiable to grant any relief to the respondent," the Court stated.

The Bench observed, "The respondent had allowed his cause to suffer for the reason of his own negligence and lackadaisical approach. The above action, or rather inaction, on the part of the respondent is not condonable by this Court and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any equitable relief. A litigant who is not vigilant and prompt towards his cause must not be allowed to claim equity before a Court of law."

The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the judgment debtor against the High Court’s order dated June 26, 2024, which had revived execution proceedings that were dismissed by the Executing Court in 2018 due to non-compliance by the decree-holder.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a 2002 judgment and decree, wherein the Trial Court directed the appellant to pay ₹2,18,000 with interest from 1985 to the decree-holder. However, the decree-holder filed for execution only in 2012, ten years later.

Despite repeated directions from the executing court between 2013 and 2018, the decree-holder failed to pay the process fee and provide details of movable property for attachment. Consequently, the executing court dismissed the execution application on April 19, 2018, citing non-compliance and absence from proceedings for over five years. In 2019, the decree-holder filed an application for restoration under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC along with a plea for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the Executing Court for being time-barred.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, however, set aside the Executing Court’s dismissal, ruling that Order XXI Rule 106 CPC was inapplicable and the execution petition should have been restored under Section 151 CPC.

Court’s Order

The Court disagreed with the High Court, emphasizing that the decree-holder’s conduct was negligent and lacked diligence at every stage. The Court noted that:

- The decree-holder delayed execution for a decade after securing the decree.

- He remained absent for over five years despite multiple opportunities to rectify defects.

- Even after dismissal, he took another year to seek restoration.

Accordingly, the Bench restored the orders of the Executing Court, dismissing both the execution proceedings and the restoration application, and allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: M/S Uttam Rice Mill Dhamtari v. M/S Ashok Construction Company

Click here to read/download the Order