Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Executing Court could direct demarcation of the decree-holder's share, compel ratification of a proposed transfer of rights, or order refund on a basis not found in the decree.
Analysis: The decree arose from a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Executing Court was bound by its terms. The requested demarcation was premature because construction had not even commenced. The compromise terms did not require the judgment debtor to ratify any sale of the decree-holder's rights, and the prayer for refund on the basis of the value of the agreed built-up area was also outside the decree. An executing court cannot travel beyond the decree or create fresh substantive reliefs while executing it.
Conclusion: The requested directions could not be granted in execution and the relief sought by the decree-holder was rejected.
Final Conclusion: Execution was confined to the terms of the compromise decree, and no additional or inconsistent directions could be issued in the execution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: An executing court cannot go behind the decree or grant relief not expressly contained in the decree, including in the case of a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.