Judicial Decree Not 'Showpiece', Symbolic Compliance Insufficient, Executing Court Can't Deny Relief On Technicality: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a decree passed by a competent court cannot be permitted to remain a "mere paper decree, ornamental in nature", or reduced to the "status of a redundant document devoid of efficacy".Justice Farjand Ali in his order said: “A decree is not intended to be a showpiece hanging on the wall of litigation; rather, it must be translated into reality so as to secure to the successful litigant the full measure of relief envisaged by the decree itself. Unless the decree-holder secures the substantive benefit contemplated under the judgment and decree, the very exercise of adjudication stands frustrated.”The Court was hearing a petition wherein a successful decree, based on compromise between petitioner and respondent parties, was secured by the petitioner wherein the absolute ownership and possession of a shop (property) had to be given to the petitioner. The petitioner in turn was entitled to get a separate patta (land deed) on the property in her name in which respondent parties had to provide assistance. Pursuant to this, the petitioner received the possession of the property, without any document being executed in her name which was required for her to obtain the patta. An application was moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC, seeking execution of the gift deed by the respondents.This application was dismissed by the execution court holding that based on the compromise decree, possession was already handed over to her, and respondents had no objection with her obtaining separate patta. The execution court said if the Nagar Palika was not issuing the same in her favour, the dispute was between the Nagar Palika and the petitioner, and the matter was out of the indulgence of the Civil Court. While calling the order to be “palpable error”, the High Court opined that this was a classic case of only symbolic compliance of the compromise decree. Possession, without any title document could not be equated with ownership and no proprietary rights could be exercised. Failing to execute the gift deed strike at the root of the decree's efficacy. Underscoring the scope of Section 151, CPC, the Court held that, “…scope and object of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure assumes paramount importance. The said provision, captioned “Saving of inherent powers of Court”…These words are couched in the widest possible amplitude, signifying that the Legislature, in its wisdom, preserved to the Courts a residuary reservoir of power to ensure that the stream of justice does not run dry on account of procedural shackles.”It was stated that using these powers, courts could pass such ancillary or consequential orders which were indispensable to render the decree meaningful. If such powers were not available, the very sanctity of the decree would be diluted, and litigants would be pushed to fruitless cycle of further litigation. In this background, it was observed that the trial court should have used its inherent powers to direct the respondents to execute gift deed as per the compromise, so that the petitioner could secure full ownership.“When the decree itself envisaged execution of documents with the cooperation of the defendants, the Executing Court could not abdicate its responsibility by shifting the burden entirely upon the decree holder to seek relief against the Municipality...In such circumstances, denying the relief on the pretext of technicalities not only amounts to denial of substantive justice but also undermines the very authority of a civil decree. It is a time honoured maxim that the Court should not permit its decree to become illusory," the court said. In this light, the Court directed the respondents to effectuate a duly registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner that shall be submitted to the concerned authority for providing separate patta in the petitioner's name. Any delay either by the respondent, or the concerned local body would be disobedience of the decree affirmed by the Court, inviting proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. Title: Smt. Pooja v Mahendra Singh & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 306Click Here To Read/Download Order

Judicial Decree Not 'Showpiece', Symbolic Compliance Insufficient, Executing Court Can't Deny Relief On Technicality: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags