Execution of decree

Babu Lal Vs M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 525 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as 

“Procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree holder starts in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. The judgment debtor tries to thwart the execution by all possible objections…...”

Satyanarain Bajoria and another Vs Ramnarain Tibrewal and another AIR 1994 SC 1583

CPC - order 21 rule 54- execution-lower appellate court totally messed the points which were required to be determined and merely by assuming that even if notice under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code is not served, by virtue of explanation to Rule 90 of Order 21 of the Code it is not a material irregularity or illegality to auction sale. The lower appellate court totally misunderstood the importance and efficacy of notices being served in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 22; Order 21 Rule 54 (1A), notice for settlement of terms of proclamation in the presence of the judgment-debtor which leg to the finding recorded by it and the finding on fact in the circumstances, is totally vitiated.

Janak Raj Vs Gurdial Singh and Anr AIR 1967 SC 608

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as "appellant-auction purchaser was entitled to a confirmation of the sale notwithstanding the fact that after the holding of the sale the decree had been set aside. The policy of the Legislature seems to be that unless a stranger auctionpurchaser is protected against the vicissitudes of the fortunes of the suit, sales in execution would not attract customers and it would be to the detriment of the interest of the borrower and the creditor alike if sales were allowed to be impugned merely because the decree was ultimately set aside or modified. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 makes ample provision for the protection of the interest of the judgment-debtor who feels that the decree ought not to have been passed against him. On the facts of this case, it is difficult to see why the judgment-debtor did not take resort to the provisions of O. XXI r. 89. The decree was for a small amount and he could have easily deposited the decretal amount besides 5 per cent. of the purchase money and thus have the sale set aside -We are not here concerned with the question as to whether restitution can be asked for against a stranger auction-purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree under s. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure and express no opinion thereon."

Challamane Huchha Gowda Vs M R Tirumala and Anr 2004(1) SCC 453

CPC - order 21 - execution - setting aside of sell- decree money was deposited by JD and objection to sell was filed before confirmation of sell- no formal application for setting aside was move. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as "It is also a settled position of law that a mere non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision in an application is not a ground to reject an application. Since, there is no bar in treating the objection (filed in the present case) as an application to setting aside the sale."

Dadi Jagannadham Vs Jammulu Ramulu and Ors AIR 2001 SC 2699

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed on period of limitation for application for deposit of money as "The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The Court cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there.----an application can be made within 60 days and, as stated above, no period for making a deposit is prescribed under Order 21, Rule 92(2) the deposit can also be made within 60 days."

Kishun Lal Vs Hardevi Kaur AIR 1946 Oudh 45

Hon'ble High Court observed as "the prayer that an auction sale to be set aside is implicit in the making of deposit...We do not think that the deposit in order to be valid must necessarily be made along with application."

Chinnamal and others Vs P Arumugham and another AIR 1990 SC 1828

In our opinion, the person who purchases the property in court auction with the knowledge of the pending appeal against the decree cannot resist restitution. His knowledge about the pending litigation would make all the difference in the case. He may be a stranger to the suit, but he must be held to have taken calculated risk in purchasing the property. Indeed, he is evidently a speculative purchaser and in that respect he is in no better position than the decree holder purchaser. The need to protect him against restitution therefore, seems to be unjustified. Similarly the auction purchaser who was a name lender to the decree holder or who has colluded with the decree holder to purchase the property could not also protected to retain the property if the decree is subsequently reversed