Executing Court has to determine whether decree has been discharged, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today ruled that the issue as to whether a decree has been discharged or satisfied has to be determined by the executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)..Appointing a Chartered Accountant for the purpose would be in excess of the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice DY Chandrachud ruled..By way of background, an arbitral proceeding took place between the appellant and the respondent under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The disputes originated from a contract of 1980 for certain civil works and eventually resulted in an arbitral award dated July 20, 1984..The award attained finality after the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed an appeal filed by the State on December 15, 2006..The appellant then filed an application for execution before the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun. During the course of the execution proceedings, the respondent-state deposited an amount of Rs. 75,65,945 towards the decretal debt..During the course of the execution proceedings, the appellant and the State filed their respective statements of calculation with regard to the amount due under the decree of the Court..On April 6, 2015, the executing court directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.25 crore, stating that it is ‘admitted’. Notice was issued to the respondent under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC, to which objections were filed..Subsequently, the executing court rejected the objections on the ground that the amount of Rs 1.25 crore was admitted, as evident from the earlier order dated April 6, 2015. A Civil Revision Application was filed by the respondent against the order of the executing court..During the course of the execution proceedings, an order was passed on August 3, 2017, directing the judgment debtor to comply with the earlier order of April 6, 2015, failing which, it was observed: “they shall be deemed to be been held”..After this order of the executing court, a stay application was moved in the revision proceedings before the High Court by the State. The High Court by its impugned order directed the appointment of a Chartered Accountant..This order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court..It was contended by the appellant that the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant in a civil revision when under Section 47 of the CPC all questions in regard to the execution discharge or satisfaction of a decree have to be determined by the executing court..It was further submitted that there was no challenge to either the order dated April 6, 2015 or the order dated August 3, 2017 of the executing court requiring the respondent to deposit the ‘admitted’ dues of Rs 1.25 crore..On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the appellant is seeking to aggrandize itself by revising its decretal claim. An amount of Rs.75,65,945 was deposited before the executing court as far back as December 7, 2012. It was urged that it is not open to the executing court to go behind the decree..The Supreme Court, after considering the rival submissions, ruled that the High Court acted in manifest excess of its jurisdiction while directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of determining as to whether the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied..The issue as to whether the decree has been discharged or satisfied has to be determined by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC, the Bench held. Further, the executing court must execute the decree as it stands, without adding anything to it..Issues surrounding the dues to be paid will be addressed in the course of the execution proceedings..Read the judgment below.