The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an executing court cannot re-consider or re-decide issues that have already been adjudicated by the trial and appellate courts and have attained finality.

The Court observed that the jurisdiction of an executing court is confined to matters concerning the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, and dismissed a challenge against the execution of a decree directing the judgment-debtors to execute a 99-year lease deed in favour of M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.

Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “The learned Executing Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider/re-decide those averments… as the suit of the plaintiff-decree holder has been decreed, which has attained finality.”

Background:

M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. had filed a suit seeking specific performance of a lease agreement and permanent injunction in respect of 11 kanals of land in Hamirpur. While the trial court initially granted only the relief of permanent injunction, the First Appellate Court subsequently allowed the plaintiff's appeal and directed the defendants to execute and register the lease deed in terms of the agreement. The decree attained finality after the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The decree-holder thereafter initiated execution proceedings and sought appointment of a Local Commissioner for execution of the lease deed. The judgment-debtors opposed the execution, primarily contending that permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was required and that the proposed 99-year lease was legally impermissible.

The Executing Court rejected the objections and appointed a Local Commissioner, prompting the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court held that the Executing Court had acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the judgment-debtors' objections and directing execution of the lease deed through a Local Commissioner.

It noted that the decree-holder had obtained the requisite permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the judgment-debtors could not reopen the issue after the decree had attained finality.

The Court further held that the objections regarding Section 118 permission, estoppel, locus standi and non-joinder had already been considered by the trial and appellate courts and therefore could not be re-decided at the execution stage. Since the agreement itself provided for a 99-year lease, the objection to the lease period was also rightly rejected.

The Court concluded that the Executing Court's order was neither perverse nor beyond its jurisdiction, and that mere lack of detailed reasoning was insufficient to warrant interference under the limited supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Name: Subhash Chand & others v/s M/s Competent Automobiles Co.Ltd.

Case No.: CMPMO No.461 of 2026

Date of Decision: 03.09.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order