RIGHT TO INFORMATION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE 

TITLED  

POLITICAL SCIENCE III

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

DR. SURESH PRASAD SINGH NAME: RUDRAKSH

PANDEY

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR COURSE: B.A. L.L.B

(Hons.)

ROLL NO- 2144

SEMESTER- 5th

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

1
 DECLARATION

I, RUDRAKSH PANDEY, hereby declare that the project work entitled “RIGHT TO
INFORMATION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS” submitted to the Chanakya National Law
University, is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of DR. SURESH
PRASAD SINGH, Asst. Professor of Law, Chanakya National Law University, and this
project work is submitted in the fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.). The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any
other University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

(Signature of candidate)

NAME: RUDRAKSH PANDEY

ROLL. NO: 2144

COURSE: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 5th

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty prof DR. SURESH PRASAD SINGH, whose guidance
helped me a lot with structuring my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have
completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that
helped me out at every stage of my project.

Thank You

3
 Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................5

CHAPTER 2: IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGY.......................................................................7

2.1 Decree..............................................................................................................................7

2.2 Decree-holder...................................................................................................................8

2.3 Judgement-debtor.............................................................................................................9

2.4 Territorial or local jurisdiction.........................................................................................9

CHAPTER 3: TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS..............................................................10

CHAPTER 4: SECTION 47 OF CPC......................................................................................11

3.1 Scope of the Section.......................................................................................................12

3.2 Essentials........................................................................................................................13

3.3 Exceptions—Nullity or unexcutable decree...................................................................13

CHAPTER 5: POWER AND DUTIES OF EXECUTING COURT.......................................13

CHAPTER 6: ORDER 21........................................................................................................16

5.1 Rule 5.............................................................................................................................16

5.2 Rule 6.............................................................................................................................16

5.3 Rule 7.............................................................................................................................17

5.4 Rule 8.............................................................................................................................17

5.5 Rule 10...........................................................................................................................17

CHAPTER 7: LIMITATION OF SEVERAL APPLICATIONS DURING EXECUTION....18

CHAPTER 8: JUDGMENT.....................................................................................................20

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION.................................................................................................21

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................22

4
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, original decree-holder, against the
respondent (judgment-debtor) under Section 47 of the C.P.C. against the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Godhra, dated 24.12.1970, dismissing Special Darkhast
No. 9 of 1967, filed by the appellant, to execute a money-decree obtained by it against the
respondent in Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1953, of the District Court of Alwar in Rajasthan.

The date of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1953, by the District Court,
Alwar, Rajasthan, is 13.12.1955. On 13.12.1956, the decree-holder filed Darkhast No. 34 of
1958 in the District Court at Alwar. On 14.7.1959, it was disposed of as there was no
property of the judgment - debtor within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. On
20.2.1960, the decree holder filed miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1960 in the District
Court, Alwar, to transfer that decree to the Court of the District Judge, Panchmahals at
Godhra. On 5.3.1960, the order of transfer prayed for, was made and on the even date,
certificate of non-satisfaction, as required, was also issued. These papers were in Hindi
language. Those papers were received by the District Court Godhra on 14.3.1960. The
District Court in its turn sent those papers to the Court of the Civil Judge. Senior Division.
Godhra on 5.4.1961. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Godhra, suo motu sent the papers back to
the District Court, Alwar for translating those documents, as those documents were in Hindi
language, on 7.4.1961. On 10.4.1961, papers were received back at Alwar. On 11.5.1961.
papers were translated. New certificate of non-satisfaction was re-issued in English language.
All those papers with translation were received back by the District Court, Godhra, on
12.6.1961. Present Special Darkhast No. 9 of 1961 was thereafter filed by the decree-holder
(appellant) in the Court of the Civil Judge. Senior Division on 27.11.1967.

The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, found that this Darkhast was clearly time-barred.
The final order was passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1960 by the Alwar District
Court regarding transfer of the decree to the Executing Court on 5.3.1960 and certificate of
non-satisfaction was also issued on that date.

5
Mr. Y. B. Bhatt, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appearing for the appellant, urged that it was
only on 11.5.1961, when the papers were translated and new certificate of non-satisfaction
was re-issued in English language, the period of limitation would commence. Prior to the
expiry of three years from that date, when the right to execute would be time-barred under
the Indian Limitation Act, 1903 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the "old Act"), the
new Act having come into force on 1.1.1964, the period of limitation would be governed
by Article 136 of the New Act. The decree we dated 13.12.1955, and this Darkhast had been
filed on 27.11.1967. It therefore, means that the Darkhast has been filed within 12 years from
the date of the decree. That being the position, the Darkhast is not time-barred.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE  

 To study about the relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

 To study about the relevant provisions of Law of Limitation.

HYPOTHESIS 

The researcher here believes that the execution of right which is time barred under the old
Limitation Act, 1903, will be expire even if a new Act comes into force prior to the expiry of
the right to execute a decree.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher will use doctrinal mode of research for the completion of the project.

6
 CHAPTER 2: IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGY
2.1 Decree
Section 2(2) of the Code defines Decree as –

‘Decree’ means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court
expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to
include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but
shall not include-

 any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

 Any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation: A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the
suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of
the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.

General Explanation of Decree

In simple words, decree is the speaking part of the judgment. Generally, Judgment consists of
Decree, orders etc which are basically adjudicatory in nature.

Decree is of two types: Preliminary and Final. Courts have the power to grant both
Preliminary as well as Final decree, depending upon the stage of the adjudication.
Preliminary decrees are granted when there is a scope for further investigation on that point
but it is also important to decide the issue at hand. On the other hand as the name suggests,
final decree can be appealed before higher courts1.

Essentials of a decree

 There must be formal expression of an adjudication;

 The adjudication must have been given in a suit before the court;

1
22, A., 2021. Important definitions under CPC. [online] Legal Bites - Law And Beyond. Available at:
<https://www.legalbites.in/important-definitions-cpc/> [Accessed 16 August 2021].

7
  The adjudication must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or
any of the matters in controversy in the suit;
 Such adjudication must be conclusive.

2.2 Decree-holder
Section 2 (3) of the code defines Decree Holder as follows:

‘Decree Holder’, means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order
capable of execution has been made.

General Explanation of Decree holder

From the definition, it is clearly observed that a decree-holder need not be the plaintiff. A
person who is not a party to the suit but an order capable of execution has been passed in his
favour is also a decree-holder. Thus where a decree for specific performance is passed such a
decree is capable of execution by the plaintiff as well as the defendant and therefore either of
them can be decree-holder.

Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and Anr.2 A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India
has observed that Decree Holders must enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained by them in an
expeditious manner.

2.3 Judgement-debtor
Section 2 (10) of the Code defines the term Judgment Debtor as follows:

‘Judgment Debtor’ means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order
capable of execution has been made.

General Explanation of Judgment Debtor

A party against which an unsatisfied court decision is awarded; a person who is obligated to
satisfy the court decision. The term judgment debtor describes a party against which a court
has made a monetary award. If a court renders a judgment involving money damages, the
losing party must satisfy the amount of the award, which is called the Judgment debt. The
losing party is called the Judgment Debtor. In other words, the losing defendant in a lawsuit
who owes the amount of the judgment to the winning party is Judgment Debtor.

2
Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 491].

8
2.4 Territorial or local jurisdiction
Under this territorial or local jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a court’s authority are
clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that geographical/
territorial limit. For example, if a certain crime is committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the
courts of law within the borders of Madhya Pradesh can hear and decide the case.
Furthermore Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure explains the territorial jurisdiction on
the grounds of the location of the immovable property. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal
Modi Vs D.L.F Universal Ltd3 , the court interpreted Section 16 that the suit pertaining to
immovable property should be brought to the court. The court does not have the power to
decide the rights of property which are not situated. However, the court can still pass a relief
if the opposite party agrees to try the suit in such a case4.

3
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs D.L.F Universal Ltd, Appeal (civil) 2726 of 2000.
4
Paliwala, M., 2021. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Under Code of Civil Procedure. [online] iPleaders. Available
at: <https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-2/#Territorial_or_local_jurisdiction> [Accessed 16
August 2021].

9
 CHAPTER 3: TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS

Order VIII of Supreme Court Rules 2013

2. No document in language other than English shall be used for the purpose of any
proceedings before the Court, unless it is accompanied by:

(a) a translation agreed to by both parties; or

(b) a translation certified to be true translation by a translator appointed by the Court; or

(c) the said document is translated by a translator appointed or approved and notified by the
Court.

Explanation - The provisions of this rule shall, so far as may be, apply also to a document in
English of which a part is in a language other than English.

3. Every document required to be translated shall be translated by a translator appointed or

approved and notified by the Court:

Provided that a translation agreed to by both parties, or certified to be a true translation by the
translator appointed or approved by the Court, may be accepted.

4. Every translator shall, before acting, make an oath or affirmation that he will translate
correctly and accurately all documents given to him for translation5.

5
Aaptaxlaw.com. 2021. Order VIII Documents | order viii of Supreme Court Rules 2013. [online] Available at:
<https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/supreme-court-rules/order-VIII-supreme-court-rules-2013-documents-order-viii-
supreme-court-rules-2013.html> [Accessed 21 August 2021].

10
 CHAPTER 4: SECTION 47 OF CPC

3.1 Scope of the Section

Section 47 provides for determination by the executing court of all questions arising between
the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to
the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. No separate suit is contemplated. As
per sub section (3) where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the
representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined
by the court. Explanation I to the section provides that for the purposes of the section, a
plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been
dismissed are parties to the suit. As per explanation II a purchaser of property at sale in
execution of a decree is be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed;
and all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such
purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this
section. [Explaination added after the decision of the Privy Council in Ganpathy v.
Krishnamchaiar6]

Exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the executing court in respect of all matters
relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree arising between the parties or their
representatives. Once the suit is decreed, this section requires that the executing court alone
should determine all questions in execution proceedings and filing of a separate suit is barred.
Since Section 47 embraces all matters connected with the execution of a decree between the
parties or their representatives, and covers all questions relating to the execution, discharge or
satisfaction of the decree, it should be liberally construed so as to empower the court to
determine all such questions, unless they clearly fall outside the scope and purview of it. It
does not matter whether such questions arise before or after the decree has been executed.
It is held in the matter of Savitribai Vs. Suman7 reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 387 that
Jurisdiction under section 47 is limited and narrow. Right to raise the objection doesn't mean

6
Ganpathy v. Krishnamchaiar, (1922) 43 MLJ 184.
7
Savitribai Vs. Suman AIR in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 387.

11
that, objector can reopen the matter. That is not intended by the legislature. Jurisdiction
being extremely limited and narrow, the objection must fall within the ambit and scope of
the same. This jurisdiction can't be equated with that of an appeal or review.
Executing Court has to go by the decree.

3.2 Essentials
Following conditions must be cumulatively satisfied for applicability of section 47.

i. The question must be one arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree is
passed, or their representatives; and
ii. It must relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

This section presupposes the existence of a decree which is capable of execution. Questions
arising between parties and a stranger are out of purview of section 47.

3.3 Exceptions—Nullity or unexcutable decree
It does not apply to cases where the decree sought to be executed is either a nullity or
declaratory in character. A decree is a nullity when it has been passed by a Court having no
jurisdiction or against a dead person.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan8 held that though a Court
executing a decree cannot go into the question of correctness or legality of a decree, it
entertains the objection that it is a nullity on the ground that the Court which passed it had no
jurisdiction to pass it. This is not going behind the decree since the decree being null and
void, there is no decree at all. An executing court can entertain objection as to defect
of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-
matter of the action. But where the objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree
does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the question raised and
decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing court
will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the
ground of absence of jurisdiction Sunder Das v. Ram Prakash9. Though section 99, C.P.C.
provides that no decree shall be reversed or varied in appeal on account of the defects
mentioned therein when they do not affect the merits of the case, however, it excludes from
its operation the defects of jurisdiction.

8
Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan, 1995 (1) SCR 117.
9
Sunder Das v. Ram Prakash (1977) 6 SCC 662.

12
 CHAPTER 5: POWER AND DUTIES OF EXECUTING COURT

The enforcement of decree will enable the decree-holder to realize the benefits of the decree.
There are several modes for the execution of the decree and the decree-holder has a right to
choose the mode at the time of enforcement of the decree 10. The procedural aspect for the
execution of a decree is enumerated under Order 21, Rules 1 to 14 of CPC. It is the lengthiest
order comprising of detailed provisions. Although the provisions might appear to be in favor
of the decree-holder, the judgment debtor can as well postpone the execution of the decree.
The burden lies on the Court of law to ensure that the provisions under Order 21 of CPC are
not misused.

All issues arising out of execution must be settled are compulsory as per Section 47 of CPC.
In instances where the judgment debtor files a separate suit inquiring about the basis of the
decree which is under execution, then such a course of execution will be completely altered.
This is one of the possibilities where the execution of decree can be procrastinated. The
jurisprudential rule behind Order 21 is that it is the duty of the judgment debtor to fulfill all
the conditions specified in the decree11. 

The Civil Courts under Section 51 have the power to enforce the execution of the decree.
There are different modes of execution like by the delivery of property that is precisely
decreed, by attaching and selling or through the sale without attaching any kind of property,
by arresting, by the appointment of a receiver. In such ways, the Court may grant relief. The
decree of payment, execution by detention shall not be ordered by the Court except when the
causes for being committed to prison is shown to the Court 12. There is a high possibility that
the judgment debtor may abscond the local limits of jurisdiction so as to obstruct or
procrastinate the execution of the decree.

Only the decree-holder is entitled to make an application for execution 13. Even in cases where
the decree is passed on a compromise and as well grants allowances to a stranger, he does not
have any right for the application of execution although he is entitled to bring in a regular
suit. The decree-holder can pray for simultaneous execution for the attachment of property
along with the arrest of judgment debtor14. This is allowed under Order XXI, Rule 30 of CPC.
10
State of Rajasthan v. Rustamji Savkasha, AIR 1972 Guj 179.
11
Sita Ram Goel v. Sukhnandi Dayal and anr, AIR 1972 SC 1612.
12
Ins. by Act 21 of 1936, s. 2.
13
Dil Afzal v. Deputy Commissioner, Baharaich, 2 O.L.J. 570.
14
Venkappav v. Lakshmikant Rao, AIR 1956 Hyd. 7.

13
During the execution of the decree, the Court has the power to sell the property that is
attached and not one the ones that are not attached according to rule 30 and 64 of Order 21
respectively. A receiver can as well be appointed if the value of the property is adequate
enough to bear such costs. If the receiver is necessary in order to build a conducive and
harmonious relationship between the decree-holder and judgment debtor, then under such
circumstances he can be appointed. The receiver also ensures discharging of a decree in a
pleasing manner.

Ramaswami v. T.N.V. Kailas15, the Court held that it is the duty of the Court executing the
decree to give effect to the conditions mentioned in the decree. The Court also held that such
a Court has no authority to exceed the terms. However, the Court has the power to analyze
the decree and mentioned that it shall not make a new decree to the parties involved. In
Karansing v. Chaman Pawan16, the Supreme Court held that when a Court without
jurisdiction passes a decree, then such a decree would be null. The validity of the same can be
set up at any time; it is required to be enforced upon including the stage of execution.

In Topanmal Vs M/s Kundomal Gangaram17, the Supreme Court held that a Court executing
the decrees must construe it in the same manner as it stands. A Court cannot go past the
decree and cannot as well make changes to the decree in any manner. The Court shall not
issue a decree granting a particular relief that is not intended in the decree.

The powers of Courts to execute a decree have a wider scope. However, there are certain
jurisdictional limitations while executing such a decree. The judicial interpretations also
made it clear that the decree can be transferred to the Courts that is exercising jurisdiction
over such matters.

15
Ramaswami v. T.N.V. Kailas AIR 1951 S.C, 189 (192).
16
Karansing v. Chaman Pawan (1955) 1 SCR 117.
17
Topanmal Vs M/s Kundomal Gangaram AIR 1960, SC 388.

14
 CHAPTER 6: ORDER 21

5.1 Rule 5
Rule 5 of CPC provides for the stay of an execution: Where the suit is pending in any Court
decree-holder and judgment-debtor in such circumstances if the Court is found the rights of
parties are required to be adjudicated by the Court where such suit is pending and unless the
rights are to be determined, the decree cannot be executed in such circumstances, Court can
stay the execution proceeding. Also, when an appeal has been filed by either of the parties,
the appellate court may order stay of proceedings or stay on an execution of such decree.

The objective is: to protect the interest of both the parties i.e. the decree-holder and the
judgement-debtor. In case the order gets reversed by the appellate court, the disputed subject
matter will stay the same, thus protecting the interest if both the parties.

The conditions preceding the court’s order regarding the stay on execution of decree:

 The application has been made without unreasonable delay.

 The applicant might suffer from a substantial loss, unless such stay is applied.
 Security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree.

This decree is usually passed when both the parties are heard. However, under Rule 5(3): 
court have a power to make ex-parte orders in case of stay of an execution.

5.2 Rule 6
The Court sending a decree for execution shall send-

(a) a copy-of the decree;

(b) a certificate setting forth that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by execution
within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed, or, where the decree has been
executed in part, the extent to which satisfaction has been obtained and what part of the
decree remains unsatisfied; and

(c) a copy of any order for the execution of the decree, or if no such order has been made, a
certificate to that effect18.

18
Aaptaxlaw.com. 2021. Order XXI CPC | Rule 6, | Execution of Decrees and Orders | Order 21 CPC 1908.
[online] Available at: <https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/code-of-civil-procedure/order-xxi-code-of-civil-procedure-
rule-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-execution-of-decrees-and-orders-order-xxi-of-cpc-1908-code-of-civil-
procedure.html> [Accessed 18 August 2021].

15
5.3 Rule 7
"Court receiving copies of decree, etc., to file some without proof": The Court to which a
decree is so sent shall cause such copies and certificates to be filed, without any further proof
of the decree or order for execution, or of the copies thereof, unless the Court, for any special
reasons to be recorded under the hand of the Judge, requires such proof.

5.4 Rule 8
"Execution of decree or order by Court to which it is sent": Where such copies are so
filed, the decree or order may, if the Court to which it is sent is the District Court, be
executed by such Court or be transferred for execution to any subordinate Court of competent
jurisdiction.

5.5 Rule 10
"Application for execution": Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall
apply to the Court which passed the decree or to the officer (if any) appointed in this behalf,
or if the decree has been sent under the provisions hereinbefore contained to another Court
then to such Court or to the proper officer thereof.

16
CHAPTER 7: LIMITATION OF SEVERAL APPLICATIONS DURING EXECUTION

 Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to any of the applications arising under
Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 According to Order 21 Rule 40 (3) proviso, the time limit for detention of an arrested
Judgment-debtor in court premises under custody of officer of court not exceeding 15
days.
 According to Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 an application to record an
adjustment or satisfaction of a decree under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC has to be filed
within 30 days from the date of payment or adjustment. Under the provisions of Order
21 Rule 2 CPC, the Judgment-debtor may, by application made in that behalf, have an
adjustment of the decree recorded and that application must be under Article 125
within 30 days of such adjustment. The decree-holder also may certify such
adjustment and have it recorded, there being no time limit for such application.
 According to Article 126 of the Limitation Act, 1963 an application for payment of
the amount due under decree by installments under Order 20 Rule 11 (2) C.P.C., has
to be filed within 30 days from the date of decree.
 Order 21 Rule 89 CPC deals with the application to set aside sale on deposit. Order 21
Rule 90 CPC deals with the application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or
fraud. Order 21 Rule 91 CPC deals with the application by purchaser to set aside the
sale on ground of judgment-debtor having no saleable interest. Sec. 47 CPC deals
with questions to be determined by the court executing decree.
 In this context, it is just and essential to know when sale can be sought to be set aside
under Section 47 CPC without resorting to Order 21 Rules 89 to 91. Our Hon'ble
High Court had an occasion to address to this question in detail. In the opinion of
Hon'ble Justice Punnaiah, Rule 89, 90 or 91 of Order 21 can be invoked if the sale is
conducted in execution of a valid decree passed by a competent Court in exercise of
jurisdiction vested in it. But, if the decree itself is null and void inasmuch as the Court
has no jurisdiction to pass such a decree, the sale conducted in exercise of such a void
decree becomes void ab initio. In such a case the Judgment-debtor can resort to
Section 47 CPC for setting aside the sale even after the sale was confirmed and the
property was delivered without driving the Judgment debtor to file a separate suit.

17
 (Devuri Appala Raju vs. Kolli Ramayamma19). According to Article 127 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 that an application to set aside a sale in execution of the decree,
including any such application by a judgment-debtor shall be filed within sixty days
from the date of sale.
 According to Article 134 of Limitation Act for delivery of possession by a purchaser
of immovable property at a sale in execution of decree under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is
one year from the date of confirmation of sale or when the sale becomes absolute.
 According to Article 135 of Limitation Act for enforcement of a decree granting
mandatory injunction under Order 21 Rule 32 r/w.35 CPC is three years from the date
of decree or date fixed for performance.
 Article 136 of Limitation Act governs the execution of the decree or order of Civil
Court other than a decree for mandatory injunction. The executing Court must execute
the decree according to its terms except when there is the statutory limitation to
execute it.
 In Giridharilal v. Thakurdas20, it has been held that the initial onus is upon the decree-
holder to show that the execution is within time. Where the application for execution
is prima facie not barred by limitation it is for the judgment-debtor to show that the
execution is time-barred.
 The modes in which the Court can give relief in execution are set forth in Order XXI
of the Civil Procedure Code. The period of limitation provided by the Article 136 of
Limitation Act is ordinarily an application for execution contemplated by Order XXI,
Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

19
Devuri Appala Raju vs. Kolli Ramayamma 1983(1) APLJ 273.
20
Giridharilal v. Thakurdas, AIR 1964 Ori. 170.

18
 CHAPTER 8: JUDGMENT

The judgment provided by the court was:

“19. Taking therefore, any view of the matter, there is no escape from the conclusion that the
finding arrived at by the executing Court that the decree is time-barred is quite correct.
Submissions No. 1 and 2 made by Mr. Bhatt, therefore, fail.

20. There is no substance in submission No. 3. It is devoid of any merits. It is not on account
of any delay caused by the order of the Court in requiring translated copies and time taken in
translation that the decree holder has suffered. Those things were done before the limitation
period had run out. It is the inaction on the part of the decree-holder till 27.11.1967, when it
filed an application for execution that has resulted in this consequence that is right to execute
has been barred.

21. There is no substance also in submission No. 4. There is no doubt, that the provisions
of Limitation Act should be construed in favour of the judgment creditor provided the
provisions of the Limitation Act should be construed in favour of the judgment creditor
provided the provisions of the Limitation Act could be reasonable so construed. There is no
question of justice, equity and good conscience involved. If application for execution is
barred by time, the Court is bound to dismiss it in view of the clear provisions of
the Limitation Act. The result is that the appeal fails.

22. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

23. Appeal dismissed.”

19
 CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION

In simple words, decree is the speaking part of the judgment. Generally, Judgment consists of
Decree, orders etc which are basically adjudicatory in nature and a person who is not a party
to the suit but an order capable of execution has been passed in his favour is also a decree-
holder. Under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure explains the territorial jurisdiction
on the grounds of the location of the immovable property. The enforcement of decree given
under territorial jurisdiction will enable the decree-holder to realize the benefits of the decree
and the procedural aspect for the execution of a decree is enumerated under Order 21, Rules 1
to 14 of CPC and it must also be settled are compulsory as per Section 47 of CPC. Section
134, 135 of the Limitation Act provides for limitation for enforcement of a decree.

As per the judgment provided by the court, it is not on account of any delay caused by the
order of the Court in requiring translated copies and time taken in translation that the decree
holder has suffered. Therefore, it is of no doubt, that the provisions of Limitation Act should
be construed in favour of the judgment creditor provided the provisions of the Limitation
Act should be construed in favour of the judgment creditor provided the provisions of
the Limitation Act could be reasonable so construed.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases

 Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 491].

 Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs D.L.F Universal Ltd, Appeal (civil) 2726 of 2000.
 Ganpathy v. Krishnamchaiar, (1922) 43 MLJ 184.
 Savitribai Vs. Suman AIR in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 387.
 Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan, 1995 (1) SCR 117.
 Sunder Das v. Ram Prakash (1977) 6 SCC 662.
 State of Rajasthan v. Rustamji Savkasha, AIR 1972 Guj 179.
 Sita Ram Goel v. Sukhnandi Dayal and anr, AIR 1972 SC 1612.
 Dil Afzal v. Deputy Commissioner, Baharaich, 2 O.L.J. 570.
 Venkappav v. Lakshmikant Rao, AIR 1956 Hyd. 7.
 Ramaswami v. T.N.V. Kailas AIR 1951 S.C, 189 (192).
 Karansing v. Chaman Pawan (1955) 1 SCR 117.
 Topanmal Vs M/s Kundomal Gangaram AIR 1960, SC 388.
 Devuri Appala Raju vs. Kolli Ramayamma 1983(1) APLJ 273.
 Giridharilal v. Thakurdas, AIR 1964 Ori. 170.

Other Citations

 22, A., 2021. Important definitions under CPC. [online] Legal Bites - Law And
Beyond. Available at: <https://www.legalbites.in/important-definitions-cpc/>
[Accessed 16 August 2021].
 Paliwala, M., 2021. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Under Code of Civil Procedure.
[online] iPleaders. Available at: <https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-
2/#Territorial_or_local_jurisdiction> [Accessed 16 August 2021].
 Aaptaxlaw.com. 2021. Order VIII Documents | order viii of Supreme Court Rules
2013. [online] Available at: <https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/supreme-court-rules/order-
VIII-supreme-court-rules-2013-documents-order-viii-supreme-court-rules-2013.html>
[Accessed 21 August 2021].
 Aaptaxlaw.com. 2021. Order XXI CPC | Rule 6, | Execution of Decrees and Orders |
Order 21 CPC 1908. [online] Available at: <https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/code-of-
civil-procedure/order-xxi-code-of-civil-procedure-rule-execution-of-decrees-and-

21
orders-order-xxi-of-cpc-1908-code-of-civil-procedure.html> [Accessed 18 August
2021].

22