EXECUTION OF DECREE

Introduction
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is the legislation in India that governs civil
proceedings, including the execution of decrees.
A decree is a formal order passed by a court that determines the rights and liabilities of
the parties involved in a case/suit.
Under Section 2(2) of the CPC, a decree is defined as “the formal expression of an
adjudication (a formal judgement on a disputed matter), determining the rights of the
parties regarding the matters in dispute.”
The execution of a decree refers to the process of enforcing the terms of the decree,
ensuring that the successful party receives the relief granted by the court. This process
plays a crucial role in ensuring justice and fairness in the legal system.
Execution, as covered in Sections 36-74, 135 and 135-A and Order XXI of the CPC,
comprises various modes and procedures that allow a decree-holder (the party in whose
favor the decree was given) to enforce their legal right against the judgment-debtor (the
opposing party who has duties under the decree).
Execution is the final step in the litigation process, where the judgment is reached
practically. It provides the decree-holder with a legal procedure to make the judgment-
debtor comply with the court’s decision. In cases where the debtor fails to comply
voluntarily, execution procedures are critical. It may be defined as ‘the enforcement of a
decree or order by the process of the court so as to enable the decree holders to realize
the fruits of the decree, judgement or order.’1
Contents of a Decree:
1. The decree shall agree with the judgment, it shall contain the number of the suit,
the [names and descriptions of the parties, their registered addresses,] and
particulars of the claim, and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other
determination of the suit.
2. The decree shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the suit, and by whom
or out of what property and in what proportions such costs are to be paid.

1
State Bank of Rajasthan v. Rustamji, AIR 1972 Guj 179.
 3. The Court may direct that the costs payable to one party by the other shall be set
off against any sum which is admitted or found to be due from the former to the
latter. (Order XX, Rule 6)
Role of Order XXI:
Order XXI of the CPC precisely details the methods and stages involved in the execution
of a decree, including attachment of property (movable and non-movable), arrest and
detention of the judgment-debtor, appointment of a receiver, and the procedure for sale of
assets to satisfy monetary decrees. Through a structured framework, the CPC ensures that
the decree-holder can achieve benefits from the court’s decision.
Execution prevents the successful party from remaining indefinitely without a remedy,
aligning with the legal maxim, ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a
remedy) therefore addressing the delay in justice.
Execution translates the court’s recognition of the decree-holder’s rights into an actual
relief. Without execution, judgments would hold little to no value in practical terms,
undermining the judiciary's authority.
It was seen in Ram Narain v. Mool Chand2 that Courts often emphasize decrees to have
a binding force. The SC reinforced that a decree’s enforcement provides assurance to
complainants that the judicial process effectively addresses and settles their disputes.
The CPC contains several provisions that safeguard both the decree-holder’s and the
judgment-debtor’s interests. The judgment-debtor is provided with notice and an
opportunity to object to the execution, reflecting principles of fairness and due process.
Execution is not a punitive but a remedial process, aimed at achieving what is just and
lawful for both the parties.
In Shankar Sitaram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke3, the court emphasized
the significance of a decree’s finality, indicating that execution is essential for the decree-
holder to benefit from the adjudication fully. The decision highlights that a decree devoid
of execution rights is ineffectual in upholding the rule of law.

Types of Decrees

2
AIR 1969 SC 244.
3
AIR 1954 SC 352.
 1. Declaratory Decree
A declaratory decree is a formal declaration of the court regarding the legal status,
rights, or duties of the parties without necessarily granting further relief or
enforcing the judgment through execution.
For example, a court might declare that a certain agreement is void or that a
particular person is the rightful owner of a property.
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 governs declaratory decrees,
permitting individuals to seek court declarations that clarify their legal rights or
entitlements, especially when their rights are denied by another party.
Declaratory decrees are used to clarify matters of legal significance, such as
property title disputes, legal status, or existence of rights and obligations.
Since these decrees do not mandate any action or change of possession, they
typically don’t require enforcement under Order XXI of the CPC.
In Kesar Singh v. Sadhu4, the SC held that a declaratory decree affirms the
existence of rights but does not include directions for actions, hence, execution is
usually not required.

2. Mandatory Decree
A mandatory decree compels the judgment-debtor to perform a specific act or to
restore the decree-holder to a previous state, often seen in cases requiring
rectification or correction of actions.
For instance, a court might order someone to pay a sum of money, return property,
or cease a particular activity.
Order XXI, Rule 32 of the CPC, deals with the enforcement of decrees
mandating specific actions, where the court can ensure compliance through direct
or indirect means, including appointing officers to execute actions on behalf of the
judgment-debtor.
If the judgment-debtor does not comply, the court can impose penalties or even
order imprisonment for contempt in certain cases. This power ensures that
mandatory orders are respected and implemented. In some cases, the court can
appoint a representative to perform the act if the debtor fails to comply within the
stipulated period.

4
AIR 1996 SC 1029.
 In the case of Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P.5, the SC emphasized that
mandatory decrees must be complied with promptly; the court has the power to
ensure enforcement when a specific act is involved.

3. Perpetual Injunction
A perpetual injunction permanently restrains the judgment debtor from committing
an act that infringes upon the decree-holder’s rights. This type of injunction is
typically issued to prevent ongoing or future harm and is governed by Section 38
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
For example, a court might grant an injunction to stop someone from constructing
a building or polluting a river.
This decree is enforceable indefinitely, providing the decree-holder long-term
protection against unlawful or injurious acts by the defendant.
Although perpetual injunctions are preventive rather than corrective, they are
enforceable by the court, which can impose penalties for violations. Failure to
comply with a perpetual injunction may lead to contempt of court proceedings.
In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh 6, the court emphasized that the purpose of a
perpetual injunction is to prevent substantial harm, providing an ongoing remedy
that remains enforceable.

4. Specific Relief (Enforced Performance)

A specific relief decree mandates the performance of a particular act, commonly in
cases involving contracts or unique assets that cannot be easily valued monetarily.
Under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific relief is granted when
compensation is inadequate, and the performance of a contract or a unique
obligation is deemed necessary by the court.
For instance, if someone fails to deliver goods as agreed upon, a court might order
them to fulfill the contract's terms.
Execution for specific relief is often implemented through Order XXI, Rule 32,
with the court taking necessary steps to ensure the decree-holder receives the
promised action or asset.
If the judgment-debtor refuses to perform, the court can appoint a representative or
grant powers to complete the required actions, such as transferring property titles
or fulfilling contract terms.

5
AIR 1997 SC 410.
6
AIR 1993 SC 276.
 In Laxminarayan v. Khanderao7, the SC clarified that specific relief is a remedial
measure for unique situations, like enforcing contractual obligations, where mere
monetary compensation is inadequate.

Procedure for Execution of Decrees

1. Application for Execution
Filing the Execution Application:
The execution process starts with the filing of an execution application by the
decree-holder in the court that passed the decree or in another court as specified
under Section 39 of the CPC (transfer of decree). The decree-holder submits the
application under Order XXI, Rule 11(1), where every application for the
execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by
some other person acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a
tabular form particular such as the number of the suit, the name of the parties, the
date of the decree, whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree, etc.

In Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh 8, the SC emphasized
that execution applications must strictly comply with Order XXI, Rule 11
requirements. Any defects in filing could delay or compromise the enforcement of
decrees.

Limitations on Filing:
According to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an execution application
must be filed within 12 years from the date the decree becomes enforceable.

2. Notice to Judgment-Debtor and Response

The law does not require any notice to be issued to the party against
whom execution is applied for except in the following cases as per Rule 22,
Order XXI which provides for notice to show cause against execution is to be
issued in certain cases. —
(1) Where an application for execution is made
a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or

7
AIR 1967 SC 908.
8
AIR 1994 SC 1848.
 b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an
application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of
section 44A, or
c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree
has been adjudged to be an insolvent),
the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom
execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why
the decree should not be executed against him.
In the case of Swaranlata v. Harendra Kumar,9 the SC held that the issuance of
notice under Rule 22 is crucial for protecting the judgment-debtor’s rights,
ensuring transparency before enforcement.
Who may apply for execution?
As provided under Order XXI, Rule 15, where the decree has been passed jointly in
favor of persons more than one, any one or more of such persons may apply for the
execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, unless the decree imposes any
condition to the contrary.
In Chanderwati Devi v. Harish Chand Rastogi & Ors.10, it was observed, “A decree when
passed against more than one judgment debtor can be executed against them jointly and
severally unless judgment debtor against whom the decree can be executed is in the same
footing as the other judgment debtor and the moment the decree is transferred in favor of
one of the judgment debtors, here is merger of the two and decree automatically stands
satisfied. It cannot then be executed against the other judgment debtors.” It was further
observed, “When there is a specific bar in Rule 16 of Order XXI CPC against execution
of a decree by one of the judgment debtors, to whom the decree has been transferred,
against other judgment debtors, in my view, the applicants cannot take assistance from
Rule 146 which does not in any way remove the bar created by Rule 16. It will not make
any difference whether the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation
of law or by way of a Will. The effect of all this is the same.”
No modification or variance in decree by executing Court
A Court executing a decree shall execute it as it stands. It cannot modify or vary the terms
of the decree. But the execution Court has the right to construe a decree in the light of the
applicable provision of law and if on a construction of the decree in the light of the

9
AIR 1969 SC 1167.
10
2000, VI AD (DELHI) 196.
applicable provisions of law, it found that the deposit made on a certain date was
according to law, a deposit in compliance with the terms of the decree, then the execution
Court was not varying the term of the decree, but executing the decree as it stood after
considering the effect of the deposit in the light of the relevant law. 11
Court by which decrees 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 as provided in Section 38 of CPC, 1908. The phrase "by the Court
to which it is sent for execution" would mean the Court situated beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree.
Sending the decree to other Court for execution is required for by Section 38 and Order
XXI, Rule 6, C.P.C., where, the Court which passed the decree should send it to the
Court which is required to execute it. No particular manner of sending it is prescribed.

Modes of Execution
1. Attachment and Sale of Property
Under Order XXI, Rules 30-59, the court can attach and sell the judgment-
debtor’s movable and immovable property if they fail to satisfy the decree amount.
Order XXI mandates a clear procedure to ensure transparency and protection
against wrongful seizure.
Rule 54 governs attachment of immovable property, where the court issues a
prohibitory order restraining the judgment-debtor from transferring the property.
Rule 43 covers the seizure of movable property.

When movable property is attached, it is taken into custody of the court officer and
cannot be disposed of by the judgment-debtor without permission. The attached
property is then sold at public auction, and the proceeds are used to satisfy the
decree. The judgment debtor can contest the attachment or sale by filing an
application with the court, providing they have legitimate grounds for doing so.

When immovable property is attached, it is marked with a notice indicating the

attachment and prohibiting the judgment debtor from selling or transferring the
property. The property is then sold at a public auction, and the proceeds are used to

11
C.F. Angaid v. Y.S. Hirnnaya, (1972) 1 SCJ 505.
 satisfy the decree. The judgment-debtor has the right to appeal the attachment or
sale if they have valid grounds for doing so.

2. Arrest and Detention

Under Order XXI, Rules 37-40, the court can order the arrest and detention of the
judgment-debtor in civil prison if they have failed to comply with a decree to pay
money or perform an act, have absconded, or have concealed their assets.
However, imprisonment is generally a last resort and may be ordered only if the
court is convinced of the debtor’s deliberate refusal to pay despite having the
means, as outlined in Section 51 of the CPC.

The court issues a warrant for the arrest of the judgment debtor, which is executed
by a court officer. The judgment debtor can apply for bail or seek to have the
warrant cancelled if they have valid reasons to do so.

The judgment-debtor is detained in a prison until they comply with the decree or
are released on bail. The detention period can be extended if the judgment-debtor
continues to fail to satisfy the decree. This measure is meant to ensure that the
court's order is enforced and that the successful party receives the relief they are
entitled to.
In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin 12, the court stated that arrest should
only be used as a method of last resort and emphasized that imprisonment should
not be used to penalize genuine inability to pay.

3. Appointment of Receiver
The court may appoint a receiver to take charge of the judgment-debtor’s assets
and oversee the execution under Order XL, Rule 1.

Transfer of Decree for Execution u/ S. 39

If the judgment-debtor resides outside the jurisdiction of the original court, Section 39
allows the decree-holder to apply for a transfer of the decree to the competent court in the
debtor’s location. The transferring court sends the decree copy along with any necessary
documents for execution to the transferee court.

12
AIR 1980 SC 470.
Transfer is often required for practical reasons, especially if the judgment-debtor or their
assets are in a different jurisdiction. This ensures the decree-holder can enforce the
judgment efficiently.
In the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 13, the SC upheld
that courts should facilitate transfer requests promptly, especially when the judgment-
debtor’s assets lie outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Objections and Challenges in Execution

1. Grounds for Objections by Judgment-Debtor
The judgment-debtor can file objections under Order XXI, Rule 26-29, raising
defenses such as satisfaction of the decree, lack of jurisdiction, procedural
irregularities, or fraud in the decree's procurement.
The judgment-debtor can file objections in the executing court regarding the
decree’s executability, legality, or jurisdiction. The executing court, under Section
47, has exclusive authority to address these objections and clarify ambiguities
before further execution steps.

2. Stay of Execution
The court may grant a stay of execution under Order XXI, Rule 29, to prevent
hardship or to maintain fairness if an appeal or review is pending. Section 151 of
the CPC also provides inherent powers to the court to grant a stay when required
for justice, particularly if the judgment-debtor proves hardship or imminent loss
from execution.

3. Objections by Third Parties (Order XXI, Rule 58)

Rule 58 allows third parties to object to the attachment of property, especially if
they claim independent rights over it. For instance, if property seized under
execution is in fact owned by a third party, they can object to its attachment. The
court investigates these claims, and if found valid, the court will release the
attached property from execution proceedings.
In Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust & Anr.14,the SC recognized the rights
of third parties to claim their independent rights over attached property, ensuring

13
AIR 1992 SC 1815.
14
AIR 1998 SC 1754.
 that the execution process does not infringe upon the rights of unrelated
individuals.

4. Fraudulent Transfers and Benami Properties (Section 53, Transfer of

Property Act, 1882)
Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act allows the court to set aside any
fraudulent or benami transfers made by the judgment-debtor to evade execution.
Such transfers are considered void if intended to prevent decree satisfaction.
Fraudulent conveyance detection helps to maintain the decree-holder’s rights over
legitimately attachable assets, preventing any deceptive shielding of assets.

Execution of Foreign Decrees

The execution of foreign decrees in India is governed by Section 44A of CPC, 1908.
These laws enable Indian courts to recognize and enforce decrees issued by foreign
courts, provided specific criteria are met.
A foreign decree is a decree issued by a court outside India. For the decree to be
enforceable in India, it must be issued by a court in a reciprocating territory (a country or
territory with which India has an agreement for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of
judgments like UK, Singapore, and certain other Commonwealth nations.)
Section 13 of the CPC lays down the conditions under which foreign judgments are
considered conclusive in India. A foreign decree must pass these tests to be enforceable.
Section 13 specifies that a foreign decree must be final and conclusive regarding the
matters it adjudicates. However, the judgment should not be:

• given without jurisdiction;

• given on merits that are opposed to natural justice;
• obtained by fraud;
• based on an incorrect view of international or Indian law;
• in conflict with prior judgments between the same parties in India.
In Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Celem S.A. 15, the court clarified that a foreign decree
based on a contract dispute was enforceable, as it met all Section 13 criteria and was from
a reciprocating territory.

15
AIR 2016 SC 1208.
Section 44A of the CPC provides the specific mechanism for executing foreign decrees
in reciprocating territories.
1. The decree-holder must file a certified copy of the foreign decree with a
district court in India, along with a certificate from the foreign court
specifying the decree amount and any part of it already satisfied.
2. Once admitted, the decree is treated as if it were a decree passed by the
Indian district court and is executed following the same procedures as
domestic decrees under Order XXI of the CPC.
3. The foreign decree’s execution must begin within 12 years from the date
of the decree’s enforceability, per Article 136 of the Limitation Act. This
ensures timely action by the decree-holder.
In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. APS Star Industries Ltd. 16, the Gujarat High Court
enforced a foreign decree, emphasizing the need for Section 13 compliance and
confirming that the limitation period applies from the date of enforceability.

Limitation in Execution of Decrees

Limitation periods in executing decrees protect against indefinite enforcement, balancing
the decree-holder’s right to recover with the need for finality in litigation. The main
limitation period for execution is governed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Article 136 stipulates a 12-year limitation period for filing execution applications,
commencing from the date the decree becomes enforceable. The 12-year rule applies to
most types of decrees, including those for money recovery, specific performance, and
other civil orders enforceable under the CPC.
Exceptions to the Limitation
The limitation period may restart in cases where a court issues a fresh decree on appeal,
or if partial satisfaction is recorded through installation payments or asset liquidation.
In certain rare instances, the limitation can also extend if the decree-holder demonstrates
that execution was previously obstructed by fraud, or if a court stay order was in place.

16
AIR 2010 Guj 3.
In Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh 17, the court upheld that
adherence to limitation periods is essential to prevent indefinite execution, thereby
protecting against prolonged litigation.
Consequences of Delayed Applications
A delayed execution application beyond the 12-year period is generally barred unless the
decree-holder can provide a substantial reason for delay, such as fraudulent obstruction or
judicial stay. Courts are strict in requiring evidence for any claims of delayed execution,
ensuring that only genuine cases warrant time extensions.
Impact of Partial Execution on Limitation Period
Partial satisfaction of a decree through methods like installment payments or asset
liquidation generally does not extend the original limitation period. However, if a court
issues a fresh decree for any remaining amount or obligation, the 12-year limitation
period may begin anew from the date of the fresh decree.
Limitation for Foreign Decrees (Section 44A)
For foreign decrees under Section 44A, the limitation period for execution is also 12
years, but the countdown starts from the date the decree becomes enforceable in the
original country. If a foreign decree is to be executed in India, the decree-holder must
ensure compliance with the 12-year limitation rule upon registration in an Indian district
court.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the execution of decrees under CPC, 1908, serves as a critical mechanism
for enforcing judicial decisions, balancing the rights of decree-holders with procedural
safeguards for judgment-debtors. The legal framework, encompassing domestic and
foreign decrees, underscores the importance of finality and compliance with specified
limitations, ensuring prompt and effective relief within the judicial system.

17
AIR 1994 SC 1848.