The Supreme Court has ruled that in an execution petition, the burden lies squarely on the decree-holder to prove that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the decree. The Court clarified that mere allegations or assumptions of non-compliance are insufficient to sustain an execution proceeding. Concrete and credible evidence must be presented to demonstrate deliberate violation of the decree terms.
The decision came from a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi while dealing with a long-standing dispute between two sects in Andhra Pradesh over worship rights and the rotation of idols in a temple. The conflict originated from a compromise decree passed in 1933, which prescribed alternating possession and performance of rituals by the respective sects. Decades later, one sect filed an execution petition claiming that the other had breached the agreed arrangement and wrongfully retained possession of the idols.
The executing court had ruled in favor of the decree-holder, accepting the claim of non-compliance. However, the Supreme Court found that both the executing court and the High Court had failed to assess whether the alleged violation was intentional and supported by sufficient evidence. The bench stressed that an execution proceeding is not a mere continuation of the original suit; it is a distinct legal process that must be governed by clear proof of breach. The Court observed that the decree-holder must first establish that the judgment debtor was aware of the decree and had a fair opportunity to comply with it but deliberately chose not to do so.
In setting aside the lower court’s order, the Supreme Court remanded the case for fresh consideration. It held that the execution process cannot proceed on presumptions or assumptions. Instead, the executing court must carefully examine whether the decree-holder has provided substantive material to show that non-compliance was willful and deliberate.
The Court underscored the importance of fairness in execution proceedings, noting that they should not become instruments of coercion or harassment. The ruling reiterates that while decrees must be enforced, the process must adhere to principles of natural justice and due process. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the decree-holder to make out a clear and specific case of violation before seeking enforcement.
This judgment reaffirms the procedural safeguards in civil law, ensuring that execution of decrees occurs only when a genuine breach is proven. It also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to preventing misuse of execution proceedings by requiring strict compliance with evidentiary standards.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.