RAJA VENKATESWARLU & ANR. versus MADA VENKATA SUBBAIAB & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 31-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 548 
RAJA VENKATESWARLU & ANR. 
v. 
MADA VENKATA SUBBAIAB & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.9916 of 2017) 
JULY31,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.151, Or. XX/, r.32 -
Execution of Decree -
Appellant sought Police Protection for 
execution of proceeding u/s.151 - Granted by Execution Court -
High Court interfered holding that application could be filed only 
C 
u/Or. XX!, r.32 - Held: The jurisdiction of execution court is not 
disputed - If only thing is that an exact provision was not invoked, 
that by itself shall not be the reason for rejecting the application -
If judgment debtor has not suffered any injury nor any prejudice 
has been caused to him, as in the instant case, the execution must 
' 
D proceed. 
Allowing the appeal, th!;! Court 
HELD: 1. The decree for permanent injunction having 
become final, the decree holder approached the Execution Court 
by way of an application for execution. [Para 3) [549-E-F] 
E 
2. Merely because an application for police protection· was 
filed only under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent 
jurisdiction, it cannot be a reason for the High Court to reject it 
and hold that the application should have been filed under Order 
XXI, Rule 32 CPC. The crucial question is whether the Execution 
Court has jurisdiction. That is not disputed. The only thing is 
F that an exact provision was not invoked. That by itself shall not 
be a reason for rejecting the application. In case, the Execution 
Court has the jurisdiction and has otherwise followed the 
procedure under the Rules, the action has to be upheld. One 
relevant question is also whether the judgment debtor has 
G suffered any injury or whether any prejudice has been caused to 
him. If the answer is in the negative, as in the instant case, the 
execution must proceed. [Para 4) [550-A-C] 
Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad v. Ben 
Hiraben Manila/ (1983) 2 SCC 422 : [1983) 2 SCR 
676; T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (2008) 5 SCC 633 
H 
: [2008) 6 SCR 959 - relied on. 
548 
RAJA VENKATESWARLU & ANR. v. MADA VENKATA 
549 
SUBBAIAH & ANR. [KURIAN, J.] 
Case Law Reference 
A 
[1983] 2 SCR 676 
relied on 
Para4 
(2008] 6 SCR 959 
relied on 
Para 4 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9616 
of 2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2014 of the High 
B 
Court of Judicature of A. P. at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition 
No. 4987 of 2013. 
M. Vijaya Bhaskar, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Sadineni Ravi Kumar, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants approached the Execution Court for execution 
of a decree for permanent injunction granted in 0.S. No. 26 of2001 on 
c 
the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel in Andhra Pradesh. It is not in 
dispute that the decree has attained finality. They sought for police 
D 
protection in the execution proceedings. However, the application for 
police protection was filed under Section 151 of the CPC. The Execution 
Court granted it. The High Court has interfered with the order holding 
that the application could have been filed only under Order XXI, Rule 
32. 
E 
3. We find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the High 
Court. The decree for permanent injunction having become final, the 
decree holder approached the Execution Court by way of an application 
for execution (E.A. No. 64/2011 in O.S. No. 26/200 I before the Junior 
Civil Judge, Badvel). No doubt, Order XXI Rule 32 provides for execution 
of a decree for injunction and more specifically under sub-rule (5) which 
reads:-
"(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a 
contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the court may, 
F 
in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, 
direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as 
G 
practicable by the decree holder or some other person appointed 
by the Court, at the cost of the judgment debtor, and upon the act 
being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such 
manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they 
were included in the decree." 
H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
4. But merely because an application for police protection was 
filed only under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent jurisdiction, it 
cannot be a reason for the High Court to reject it and hold that the 
application should have been filed under Order XXI,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.