Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (10) 71
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26593 of 2025)
Date of Decision: 2025-09-11
Case Title: The Issue of whether the appellant could obstruct execution proceedings after refusing to accept compensation awarded by the Supreme Court in lieu of specific performance
Before Judge: Vikram Nath, J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 1214
Advocate(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Mr. Aditya Dassaur
Appellant: Prem Aggarwal
Respondent: Mohan Singh & Ors.
Nature of Litigation: Execution proceedings arising from property dispute involving agreement to sell
Remedy Sought: Appellant challenging High Court order upholding Executing Court's directions for issuance of warrant of possession
Filing Reason: Appellant refused to accept compensation awarded by Supreme Court and obstructed execution proceedings
Previous Decisions: Supreme Court judgment dated 01.04.2025 allowed respondents' appeal, dismissed suit as barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, but awarded compensation of ₹2,00,00,000 to appellant -- High Court judgment dated 11.09.2025 dismissed civil revision against Executing Court orders
Issues: Whether the appellant could obstruct execution proceedings after refusing to accept compensation awarded by the Supreme Court Whether equity would allow the appellant to retain possession while refusing monetary compensation
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant's counsel argued against the execution proceedings Respondents' counsel argued that appellant was unnecessarily delaying execution and had refused to accept compensation
Ratio Decidendi: Equity will not allow unjust enrichment -- The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls -- A party that has received such compensation must yield possession -- The appellant's refusal to accept compensation and obstruction of execution proceedings was an abuse of process
Judgment Excerpts: Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer -- This appeal is a cautionary tale about how the pursuit of a windfall can turn the process of law against those who seek to exploit it -- The appellant has shot himself in the foot and in the same breath dug his own grave -- Equity will not allow unjust enrichment -- The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls -- A party that has received such compensation must yield possession
Procedural History: 1989: Agreement to sell executed with ₹25,000 earnest money -- 1990: First suit for permanent injunction filed and dismissed as withdrawn -- 1990: Second suit for specific performance filed -- 2009: Trial Court decreed specific performance suit -- 2013: First appeal dismissed -- 2022: Second appeal dismissed by High Court -- 2022: Review petition dismissed -- 2025: Supreme Court allowed respondents' appeal, dismissed suit as barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, but awarded compensation of ₹2,00,00,000 -- 2025: Execution proceedings initiated as appellant refused compensation -- 2025: Executing Court directed issuance of warrant of possession -- 2025: High Court dismissed civil revision -- 2025: Supreme Court dismissed present appeal
