Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAJA VENKATESWARLU & ANR. versus MADA VENKATA SUBBAIAB & ANR.

Decided
31 July 2017
Judges listed
KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 548 ยท 2017 INSC 689
Also cited as
  • (2017) 15 SCC 659 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 549, margin C

2

The appellants approached the Execution Court for execution of a decree for permanent injunction granted in 0.S. No. 26 of2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel in Andhra Pradesh. It is not in dispute that the decree has attained finality. They sought for police protection in the execution proceedings. However, the application for police protection was filed under Section 151 of the CPC. The Execution Court granted it. The High Court has interfered with the order holding that the application could have been filed only under Order XXI, Rule 32.

p. 549, margin C

3

We find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the High Court. The decree for permanent injunction having become final, the decree holder approached the Execution Court by way of an application for execution (E.A. No. 64/2011 in O.S. No. 26/200 I before the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel). No doubt, Order XXI Rule 32 provides for execution of a decree for injunction and more specifically under sub-rule (5) which reads:- "(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree."

p. 549, margin E

4

But merely because an application for police protection was filed only under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent jurisdiction, it cannot be a reason for the High Court to reject it and hold that the application should have been filed under Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC. The crucial question is whether the Execution Court has jurisdiction. That is not disputed. The only thing is that an exact provision was not invoked. That by itself shall not be a reason for rejecting the application (See Municipal Comoration of the Citv of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manila! and T. Nagappa v. Y. R. Muralidhar2). In case, the Execution Court has the jurisdiction and has otherwise followed the procedure under the Rules, the action has to be upheld. One relevant question is also whether the judgment debtor has suffered any injury or whether any prejudice has been caused to him. If the answer is in the negative, as in the instant case, the execution must proceed. The impugned judgment is hence set aside, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Execution Court is restored.

p. 550, margin A

5

Learned counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor submits that there are other disputes with regard to the same property and they have filed a suit for specific performance.

p. 550, margin D

6

Needless to say that the execution of the decree shall not stand in the way of suit for specific performance, being tried on its own merits.

p. 550, margin D

7

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

p. 550, margin E

8

There shall be no orders as to costs. (1983) 2 sec 422 c2008) s sec 633

p. 550, margin E