LexPREM AGGARWAL versus MOHAN SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 395 : 2025 INSC 1214 Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26593 of 2025) 07 October 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant has been unnecessarily delaying and causing obstruction in the execution of the decree. Headnotes† Decree – Execution of Decree – After this Court on 01.04.2025 set aside the decree but moulded equitable relief by directing payment of ₹2,00,00,000/-, the appellant refused the tender and obstructed execution: Held: The defendants-respondents tried to make the payment to the plaintiff-appellant but they declined to accept the same and as such execution proceedings were initiated in which the defendants deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores by way of Fixed Deposits in the name of the plaintiff – The appellant has been unnecessarily delaying and causing obstruction in the execution of the decree – There is no default on the part of the defendants in complying with the direction of this Court to pay the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the appellant – What has been awarded by the judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 is a whopping amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as against the earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- – Merely because the fact of possession was not pointed out at the time of hearing, the appellant as an unscrupulous litigant has been resisting the delivery of possession and has dragged the respondents up to this Court – The appellant had lost in the suit for permanent injunction and now having lost in the suit for specific performance of contract cannot claim to hold on to the possession or insist that the defendants should file a separate suit for possession – The compensation of Rupees Two Crores was awarded only to bring an end to the litigation and put a quietus – The plaintiff wants to take undue advantage of an omission in the judgment dated 01.04.2025, wherein this * Author 396 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Court did not clarify that possession would be handed over to the respondent upon receipt of the amount awarded – The Court, acting as in appendage of justice, cannot permit its own procedure or inadvertent lapse to occasion injustice – Appellant is directed to pay cost which is quantified as Rs.10,00,000/-. [Paras 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17] Maxim – Actus curiae neminem gravabit: Held: The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, is a principle firmly embedded in jurisprudence – It is founded on the equitable notion that no party should suffer owing to an error, delay, or inadvertence attributable to the Court itself – The Court, acting as in appendage of justice, cannot permit its own procedure or inadvertent lapse to occasion injustice – Accordingly, where a party has been disadvantaged by reason of an act of the Court, it is incumbent upon the Court to undo such prejudice and restore the party to the position he would have occupied but for such act. [Para 15] Case Law Cited Jang Singh v. Brij Lal [1964] 2 SCR 145 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 219 – relied on. Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and Another v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRS. and Others [2002] 1 SCR 393 : (2002) 3 SCC 676 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Decree; Execution of decree; Obstruction in execution of decree; Actus curiae neminem gravabit. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26593 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2025 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 5810 of 2025 [2025] 10 S.C.R. 397 Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Pavani Verma, Mrs. Anumita Verma, Akhilesh Yadav. Advs. for the Respondents: Aditya Dassaur, Ms. Priyanjali Singh. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer. After this Court on 1st April, 2025 set aside the decree but moulded equitable relief by directing payment of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores), a sum 800 (eight hundred) times the ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) paid as earnest money in 1989, the appellant refused the tender, obstructed execution, and has returned to this Court in an effort to delay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.