(Anil R. Dave and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)
Inder Chand Dead through his Legal Representatives ________ Appellant
v.
Motilal Dead through his Legal Representatives __________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5689 of 2015†, decided on July 24, 2015
The Judgement of the court was delivered by
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by
Anil R. Dave, J.:— Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.
2. In our opinion, it was not open to the High Court to modify its order1 after the said order had been given a seal of approval2 by this Court.
3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and modify the impugned order dated 22-7-20103 by directing that the following paras of the impugned order shall be deleted: (Inder Chand case3, SCC OnLine Raj paras 5-6)
“5. With these observations, this application is, hereby, allowed.
6. Meanwhile the executing court before whom a petition has been filed for executing the decree, is directed not to proceed any further on Execution Petition No. 13 of 2010.”
4. It is also clarified that SB Civil Regular First Appeal No. 36 of 1976 has already been disposed of by order dated 12-3-1987 and therefore, the interlocutory application, which had been filed before the High Court, had already been disposed of by virtue of order dated 22-7-20103.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. The executing court shall do the needful.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
(BEFORE R.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
The Judgment of the High Court was delivered by
R.S. Chauhan, J.:— An application (No. 25235 of 2009) under Section 151 CPC has been filed by the respondent-applicant with the prayer for drawing up a decree in terms of the judgment dated 11-8-2006 passed by this Court which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21-7-2009 and for incorporating the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21-7-2009.
7. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, Senior Advocate and the learned counsel for the appellant-non-applicant, has contended that according to Order 45 Rule 1 CPC, the word “decree” has been defined as “an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which shall include a final order”. Therefore, according to him, a decree need not be drawn up by this Court. Moreover, according to Order 45 Rule 15 CPC, whenever a party desires to obtain execution of any decree or order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is empowered to transmit the decree per order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Court where the first decree appealed from, was prepared. Therefore, he contends that this Court is free to transmit the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Court which had first prepared the decree which was appealed from, namely, the learned trial court.
8. Mr. G.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant, does not have any objection if the order or decree of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were so transferred.
9. Therefore, this Court directs the learned trial court to execute the judgment dated 11-8-2006 passed by this Court as well as the two directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21-7-2009.
10. With these observations, this application is, hereby, allowed.
11. Meanwhile the executing court before whom a petition has been filed for executing the decree, is directed not to proceed any further on Execution Petition No. 13 of 2010. The Registry is directed to return all the original documents submitted by the respondent-applicant along with his rejoinder.
12. In light of the directions so given above, this first appeal stands disposed of.
———
† Arising out of SLP (C) No. 32991 of 2010
1 Motilal v. Inderchand, Civil Revision Petition No. 33 of 2006, order dated 13-10-2006 (Raj)
2 Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 461
3 Inder Chand v. Motilal, (2010) SCC OnLine Raj 4620
