SATYAWATI versus RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 29-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 471 
SATYAWATI 
v. 
RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4176 of 2013) 
APRIL 29, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI, ANIL R. DAVE AND RANJANA 
PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Execution of decree: 
Petition for execution of decree entitling the plaintiff to 
possession of a plot - Rejected on the ground that decree was 
A 
B 
c 
not executable because of contradictory reports - Revision of 
plaintiff rejected by High Court - Held: Judgment in favour of 
plaintiff was delivered by considering a report dated 17. 9. 1989 
0 
and a sketch of land in question, which were made by local 
commissioner and both are part of record - High Court was 
not right while confirming the order passed by executing court, 
for latter had taken into account certain other reports for 
purpose of rejecting execution proceedings - Once decree 
E 
was made in favour of plaintiff, in pursuance of judgment 
delivered by District Judge, executing court should n,0t have 
looked into other reports which had been submitted to it 
afterwards - Local Commissioner's report dated 17. 9. 1989 
along with sketch clearly describes land in question -
Executing court ought to have considered it - Orders of F 
executing court and High Court set aside - Executing court 
directed to do the needful for execution of decree taking into 
account local commissioner's report dated 17. 9. 1989 -
Decree. 
Delay/Laches: 
Delay in execution of decree - Execution petition filed in 
1996 - However, decree not executed till date - Held: There 
471 
G 
H 
4 72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A should not be unreasonable delay in execution of a decree -
- Executing court will do the needful at an early date so as to 
see that the long drawn litigation which was decided in favour 
of appellant is finally concluded and he gets effective justice. 
8 
Babu Lal vs. Mis. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. 1982 (3) 
SCR 94 = (1982) 1 SCC 525; Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. 
vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr. 1999 (1) SCR 311 = (1999) 
2 SCC 325; Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan Prasad 
Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna and Ors. 2009 (14) SCR 40 = 
c (2009) 9 sec 689 - referred to. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The General Manager of the Raj Durbhnga under the 
Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing; Kuer 
Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd., Lucknow AIR 
1925 Oudh 448- referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1925 Oudh 448 
referred to 
1982 (3) SCR 94 
referred to 
1999 (1) SCR 311 
2009 (14) SCR 40 
referred to 
referred to 
para 13 
para 14 
para 15 
para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4176 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.05.2011 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 
2047 of 2010 (0 & M) 
B.S. Mor, R.C. Kaushik for the Appellant. 
Lalit Trakru, Sandeep Bhalla for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
SATYAWATI v. RAJINDER SINGH 
473 
ORDER 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in 
execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had 
observed that " ....... the difficulties of a litigant in India begin 
when he has obtained a Decree ...... ". 
A 
B 
3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been 
improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem 
which was being faced in the past. We are concerned with the c 
case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil 
Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad 
on 19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the 
aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant-plaintiff is not 
in a position to get fruits of his success. 
D 
4. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered in Civil 
Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in favour of the appellant has become 
final as it was not challenged before the High Court. In 
pursuance of the decree drawn, the appellant made several 
efforts to get the decree executed. His last effort, with which 
E 
we are concerned, had been initiated in 1996, when he had 
approached the court of Additional Senior Division, Palwal with 
an Execution Petition for execution of the decree. 
5. As the decree had already been made in favour of the 
F 
appellant, we need not go into the facts of the case, however it 
will be worth noting that by virtue of the decree, the appellant-
plaintiff is entitled to possession of land admeasuring 80 sq. 
yard forming part of land of Khasra No.95/24/2 situated within 
municipal limits of Palwal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.