Court holds that executing court cannot go beyond decree and Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate facts; objections over Section 118 permission and lease terms rejected.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Subhash Chand and others challenging an execution order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, in favour of M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., holding that no case of perversity or jurisdictional error was made out.
Justice Virender Singh, while hearing the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution, reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. The Court said it would not reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of the executing court unless there was gross procedural irregularity, abuse of jurisdiction, or findings that were perverse.
The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance and injunction concerning land in Hamirpur. The trial court had initially granted only permanent injunction, but the First Appellate Court later modified the decree and directed the defendants to sign, execute, and get registered a lease deed in favour of the decree holder. The decree attained finality after the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
During execution proceedings, the judgment debtors objected to the decree holder’s request for execution of the lease deed, arguing that permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act had not been properly obtained, that the decree holder lacked locus, and that the proposed lease deed was legally defective. They also objected to the 99-year lease term and claimed the draft deed was premature.
Rejecting these objections, the High Court noted that the decree holder had already mentioned in the execution application and draft lease deed that the requisite Section 118 permission had been granted by the Government through a letter dated 6 February 2015. The Court held that once such permission had been obtained, the judgment debtors could not insist that the draft deed was premature or challenge compliance in execution.
The Court further observed that objections relating to estoppel, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the validity of the underlying lease terms had already been dealt with by the trial court and first appellate court. The executing court, it said, had no authority to reopen those issues and was bound only to execute the decree as it stood.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, and recent decisions on Article 227, the High Court held that the executing court had rightly considered the objections under Section 47 CPC and Order 21 Rule 34 CPC, and had correctly appointed a Local Commissioner to execute the lease deed.
The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the parties were directed to appear before the executing court on 7 September 2026.
Bottom Line :
Article 227 jurisdiction is limited to supervisory oversight and cannot be used as a court of first appeal to reappreciate or substitute findings of subordinate courts unless there is evidence of gross procedural irregularity, abuse of jurisdiction, or perversity.
Statutory provision(s): Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 21 Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act
