The Patna High Court stated that a decree does not become invalid just because some defendants passed away while the case was ongoing.
The Patna High Court stated that the decree remains valid even if some defendants passed away while the case was ongoing. The court was reviewing a petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution to overturn the Executing court’s decision that denied a request to dismiss the execution case. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, on the Single-Judge Bench, remarked that the petitioner cannot claim the decree is invalid simply because some defendants died during the case. If the heirs of those defendants are already involved and did not contest the case or were absent, they cannot seek relief based on the argument that the decree is invalid due to abatement.
In this case, the petitioner was one of the judgment-debtors, while respondent no. 1 was the decree-holder in the Execution Case. Respondent no. 1 initiated a Title Suit against the petitioner and others, seeking a declaration of his title and possession over 3 acres and 43 decimals of land, along with other requests. The Title Suit was decided in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to give up vacant possession of the land. If they failed to do so, the plaintiff could obtain possession through the court. Following this, the plaintiff filed an Execution Case to enforce the decree against all named defendants.
After receiving the death certificates of some defendants, the petitioner requested the executing court to declare the decree being enforced as invalid since it was issued against deceased individuals. The petitioner sought to have the execution case dismissed based on this argument. The decree-holder responded with a counter to this application. The Executing Court denied the petitioner’s request, leading to the case being taken to the Apex Court. Parbat, representing the petitioner, argued that the order was arbitrary and misused power. He also pointed out that the application was submitted under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure but was dismissed without starting a miscellaneous case.
The Respondent’s Counsel countered that there is no legal requirement to file a miscellaneous case under these sections when the application did not specify any provision and the issue could be resolved based on the existing records. The Bench noted that typically, when an application is made under Section 47 of the Code, Rule 459 of the Civil Court Rules states that a miscellaneous case should be opened. However, it was further noted that a miscellaneous case was unnecessary in this situation since the dismissal application did not cite any specific provision and did not request the establishment of a miscellaneous case to address the petitioner’s objections.
The Bench stated that if there are no disputed facts needing evidence and a detailed hearing, there is no need to start a miscellaneous case based on an application that does not request this or cite any legal provision. They also noted that a decree can only be considered void if the court did not have the authority to issue it, if it was issued against someone who has died, or if it was made without following the law, especially if the law changed after the decree was issued. The Bench pointed out that since the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased defendants are already involved, there is no reason for the decree to be void. Additionally, the Bench emphasized that an Executing Court cannot go back on the decree, cannot appeal it, or make any decisions that would harm the rights of the parties involved, as established by the Supreme Court in several cases, including Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram & Ors., reported in AIR 1960 SC 388.
The Bench referred to the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University and others [AIR 2001 SC 2552] and stated, “A decree is only considered non-executable if it comes from a court without proper authority or is completely invalid. An incorrect decree is not the same as one that is invalid. There are no new developments that would make the decree non-executable.” The High Court noted that the order in question could not be challenged simply because a vague petition was filed without a proper miscellaneous case, claiming the decree was non-executable. The Bench found the Executing court’s order to be well-reasoned and made after careful consideration of all relevant factors, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Cause Title: Abdul Badud v Abdul Quayum & Ors [ Case No. Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.562 of 2018]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocates Ved Prakash Srivastava & Praveen Prabhakar
Respondent: Advocates Naresh Chandra Verma & Natraj Verma
