JINI DHANRAJGIR Vs. SHIBU MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) More than a century and a half back, the Privy Council (speaking through the Right Hon. Sir James Colville) in The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh,(1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605 lamented that the difficulties of litigants in India indeed begin when they have obtained a decree. A reference to the above observation is also found in the decision of the Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court in Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd. Lucknow,AIR 1925 Oudh 448. It was ruled there that the Courts had to be careful to ensure that the process of the Court and the laws of procedure were not abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to make the courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who had obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.

(3.) Notwithstanding the enormous lapse of time, we are left awestruck at the observation of the Privy Council which seems to have proved prophetic. The observation still holds true in present times and this case is no different from cases of decree-holders' woes commencing while they are in pursuit of enforcing valid and binding decrees passed by civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decreeholders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not. In Martin Burn Ltd. vs. Corporation of Calcutta,AIR 1966 SC 529 this Court held that a court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.