Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Bagalkot Udyog Limited, was a lessee under the respondents pursuant to a lease deed dated 19.11.1952 for 30 years ending on 31.03.1983, with a renewal clause for another 30 years from 01.04.1983 to 31.03.2013. The appellant exercised the renewal right, but the respondents refused. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed on 10.06.1991, directing the respondents to execute a registered lease deed for 30 years from 01.04.1983 to 31.03.2013. In execution proceedings, the respondents were proceeded ex parte, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to execute the lease deed. The Executing Court, on the administrative side, prepared a draft lease deed that included a further renewal clause for another 30 years from 01.04.2013 onwards, mirroring the original 1952 lease. The lease deed was registered on 17.08.2010, and the appellant got the execution petition dismissed as satisfied on 20.08.2010. The appellant then filed a fresh suit for renewal from 01.04.2013. Upon notice, the respondents filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order dated 20.08.2010, which was dismissed as not maintainable since the execution petition was disposed of. The respondents then filed a revision under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court, by order dated 24.04.2019, remitted the matter back to the Executing Court to examine whether it had traversed beyond the decree. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was right in exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The appellant argued that the order dated 20.08.2010 could not be challenged under Section 115 as it was not a final order, and the remedy was under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC. The respondents contended that they were not challenging the ex parte order but the Executing Court's act of granting relief beyond the decree. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within its jurisdiction to entertain the revision because no appeal lies against an order where the Executing Court allegedly travels beyond the decree, and no party should be left remedy-less. The order disposing of the execution petition was a final order. The Court clarified that the respondents' failure to challenge the ex parte order under Order XXI Rule 106 did not estop them from raising the issue of the Executing Court exceeding its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving it to the Executing Court to decide whether the decree permitted renewal beyond 31.03.2013, uninfluenced by any observations of the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Executing Court's Jurisdiction - Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Revision against order of Executing Court - The High Court entertained a revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the order of the Executing Court which allegedly travelled beyond the decree by including a renewal clause for another 30 years beyond 2013. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within its jurisdiction to entertain the revision as no appeal lies against such an order and no party can be left remedy-less. The order of the Executing Court disposing of the execution petition as satisfied was a final order, and the High Court could examine whether the Executing Court exceeded the decree. (Paras 5-7) B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Order XXI Rule 106, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Remedy against ex parte proceedings - The respondents did not challenge the ex parte order under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC, and that part of the proceedings became final. However, they were not estopped from urging that the Executing Court's order was beyond the scope of the decree. The Supreme Court clarified that the respondents' failure to challenge the ex parte order did not bar them from raising the issue of the Executing Court exceeding its jurisdiction. (Paras 5-6) C) Civil Procedure - Final Order - Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Revision against order disposing of execution petition - The Supreme Court held that the order dated 20.08.2010 disposing of the execution petition as satisfied was a final order, and the fact that setting it aside would revive the execution proceedings did not make it any less final. Therefore, the High Court could entertain a revision under Section 115 CPC against such an order. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to remit the matter back to the Executing Court to decide whether the order passed by it was in accordance with the decree passed by the Civil Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was within its jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 115 CPC. The Court clarified that the Executing Court will decide whether the decree limited the renewal up to 31.03.2013 or permitted another extension thereafter, uninfluenced by any observations of the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- Section 115 CPC
- Order XXI Rule 106 CPC
- Executing Court cannot travel beyond decree
- Remedy against executing court order beyond decree
- Final order under Section 115 CPC
