The Supreme Court has held that an executing court cannot modify or alter the terms of a decree while enforcing it.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has observed that under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of an executing court is strictly limited to executing the decree and resolving issues related to its implementation, discharge, or satisfaction. It cannot assume the role of a trial court or substitute its own interpretation to alter the decree’s terms.
The dispute arose from the execution of a compromise decree dated July 14, 2017, concerning a parcel of non-agricultural land situated in Panchgani, Maharashtra. The parties had entered into a settlement dividing approximately 51R of land, with 10R designated as common land and the remaining portion equally split between them. The decree clearly specified the portions allocated to each party, along with obligations such as execution of a sale deed.
Subsequently, both parties initiated execution proceedings. However, in one such proceeding, the executing court issued directions in 2021 that effectively altered the land allocation specified in the decree. The court justified its decision on grounds such as impracticality due to unauthorized constructions and prior sale of certain portions of land. It further modified its own order upon review and directed delivery of possession accordingly.
Challenging these actions, the appellant contended that the executing court had acted beyond its authority by modifying the decree instead of enforcing it as it stood. The High Court had earlier upheld the executing court’s orders, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that an executing court “cannot go behind the decree” and must enforce it as it is, unless the decree is a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. Citing precedents such as Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, the bench underscored that even an erroneous decree remains binding unless set aside through appropriate legal proceedings.
The Court clarified that while executing courts may resolve disputes relating to the identity of property or ensure compliance with reciprocal obligations, they cannot vary the substantive terms of the decree. In the present case, since the decree clearly identified the land portions allocated to each party, there was no ambiguity warranting modification.
The Supreme Court held that practical difficulties such as unauthorized constructions or prior sale of land are immaterial in execution proceedings. The court’s duty is confined to enforcing the decree as passed, not reshaping it to address subsequent complications.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the orders dated July 19, 2021, August 26, 2021, and October 11, 2021, passed by the executing court. It directed that the decree be executed strictly in its original terms and tenor.
Case Details
Case Title: Maurice W. Innis Versus Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh
Citation: JURISHOUR-699-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8166 of 2022
Date: 09/04/2026
Read More: Transfers During Litigation Non Est in Property Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance
