VAISHNO DEVI CONSTRUCTION REP. THR. SOLE PROPRIETOR (D) THR. LRS & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

VAISHNO DEVI CONSTRUCTION REP. THR. SOLE PROPRIETOR (D) THR. LRS & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 (inserted by the 1976 amendment) clarifies that nothing in that rule shall affect Section 146 and that a transferee of rights in the property which is the subject matter of the suit may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree; consequently...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Vaishno Devi Construction Rep. Thr. Sole Proprietor (D) Thr. LRs & Anr.; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court (final Disposal)
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Order XXI Rule 16 CPC, Section 146 CPC, Assignment of Decree, Law Commission Amendment to CPC
Civil Procedure Arbitration Execution of Decrees Order XXI Rule 16 CPC Section 146 CPC Assignment of Decree Law Commission Amendment to CPC

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vaishno Devi Construction Rep. Thr. Sole Proprietor (D) Thr. LRs & Anr.

Appellant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 (inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976) altered the legal position as laid down in Jugalkishore Saraf regarding requirement of a written assignment after the decree is passed
  2. 2 Whether a transferee who has succeeded to the decree-holder’s rights but does not have a written assignment of the decree can apply for execution under Section 146 read with Order XXI Rule 16 and Section 47 CPC
  3. 3 Whether the executing court should determine the validity of the alleged assignment in execution proceedings rather than by separate suit

Ratio Decidendi

The Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 (inserted by the 1976 amendment) clarifies that nothing in that rule shall affect Section 146 and that a transferee of rights in the property which is the subject matter of the suit may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree; consequently the pre-amendment strict reading of Jugalkishore Saraf does not govern post-amendment cases and the executing court must determine the appellants’ claim to be assignees in the execution proceedings; the impugned judgments were set aside and the matter remitted to the executing court for determination.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgments set aside and matter remitted to the executing court for determination of the appellants' claim as assignees
  • Parties to bear their own costs