The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has unequivocally held that an Executing Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree to impose new conditions such as interest payments, even by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. This ruling upholds the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and acts as binding authority for subordinate courts, reaffirming the strict limitation on the jurisdiction of Executing Courts in execution proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/6323/2025 of SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs SWARANJIT KAUR RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011456382025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Execution Proceedings) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an Executing Court can impose new conditions not contained in the decree, such as additional interest, by invoking inherent or “social justice” powers. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that an Executing Court cannot exceed the mandate of the decree. Imposing additional conditions such as payment of interest, which were not part of the original decree, is a patent jurisdictional error, even if framed as an exercise of inherent or social justice powers under Section 151 CPC. The role of the Executing Court is strictly to execute the decree as passed, and not to enhance or modify it. The judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s decision in “State of Punjab and Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177”, which laid down that an Execution Court is bound by the terms of the decree and cannot grant relief not contained therein. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the execution proceedings to be carried out strictly as per the decree. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Punjab and Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the settled principle that an Execution Court has no authority to add to or vary the terms of the decree under the guise of fairness, justice, or inherent powers, as outlined in binding Supreme Court precedent. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The decree-holder’s execution petition was subject to conditions by the Executing Court, including deposit of balance sale consideration with interest, even though the original decree contained no such interest stipulation. Appeals and review were dismissed on the same erroneous basis, compelling a supervisory revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and can be cited as following the Supreme Court’s binding precedent |
| Follows | State of Punjab and Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that Executing Courts are strictly confined to the terms of the decree and cannot add conditions such as payment of interest under Section 151 CPC or in the name of “social justice.”
- Sets aside impugned orders and clarifies that executing courts have no inherent or equitable power to modify or enhance decrees at the execution stage.
- Confirms that any attempt by the executing court to go beyond the decree is a jurisdictional error susceptible to correction by superintendence under Article 227.
- Stresses reliance on the Supreme Court’s authority—lawyers should prepare to counter attempts by executing courts to act outside decree terms, even citing perceived fairness.
- Provides a clear basis for challenging impugned execution orders that transgress decree terms.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court highlighted that the Executing Court imposed conditions—specifically, that the decree-holder must deposit balance sale consideration with interest, and introduced a penal enhancement provision—despite the original decree containing no such interest stipulation.
- The Executing Court claimed to act under Section 151 CPC and notions of “social justice,” but the High Court held this to be a patent jurisdictional error.
- The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177, which unequivocally states that Execution Courts are bound by the terms of the decree and cannot add or grant relief, including interest, that is not in the decree.
- The High Court emphasized that the right of the decree-holder is determined solely by the decree’s terms, and even for equitable, “social justice” reasons, no addition or alteration is permissible.
- The impugned orders were set aside, and the Court ordered that execution proceedings proceed strictly per the decree.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Executing Court had no power to impose extra conditions such as interest, which were not part of the original decree.
- The insistence on making payment of interest violated the clear terms of the decree and constituted jurisdictional overreach.
- Sought intervention under Article 227 to set aside these additional conditions.
Respondent:
No submissions are mentioned in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioners, decree-holders, initiated execution proceedings to enforce a decree for specific performance. The Executing Court conditioned their right to execution on a deposit of the balance sale consideration with interest, despite the decree containing no such stipulation. These orders were reiterated in subsequent proceedings and on review, compelling the petitioners to file the present revision under Article 227 against the imposition of extra-statutory conditions by the Executing Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which contains the court’s inherent powers.
- It held that Section 151 cannot be used by an Executing Court to go beyond the terms of the decree or to “do social justice” by adding conditions, such as payment of interest, absent from the decree.
- Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to remedy the jurisdictional error.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court follows and applies the binding Supreme Court precedent on the powers (and limitations) of executing courts.