BHANDARI ENGINEERS Vs. MAHARIA RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delays and difficulties in execution of decrees/awards erode public confidence and trust in justice delivery system. Execution jurisdiction deserves special attention and expeditious disposal considering that the decree-holder has already succeeded in the litigation and holds a decree/award in his favour.

(2.) In Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 491, the Supreme Court quoted the Privy Council's judgment of 1872 that the "difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree" and observed that the position has not improved and the decree-holders face the same problem. The Supreme Court observed that if there is an unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because, the decree-holder would be unable to enjoy the fruits of his success and the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced as under:-

(3.) Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the execution of the decrees. Order XXI Rule 1(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the judgment debtor to directly pay the decretal amount to the decree-holder. Order XXI Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the option to the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal/award amount with the Executing Court and give the notice of deposit to the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in an ideal situation, the judgment debtor is supposed to satisfy the decree/award without waiting for the institution of an execution case. For example, the Insurance Companies deposit the award amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in respect of awards passed in motor accident claims unless they chose to challenge the award in appeal.