Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has set aside an administrative direction that barred the Registry from accepting execution petitions where the money decree was Rs. 2 crore or below. Allowing the challenge in part, the Court held that no litigant can be stopped at the filing stage from lodging such execution petitions, even after the High Court’s pecuniary threshold was raised from Rs. 20 lakhs to above Rs. 2 crores and such matters were stated to lie before district courts. The Bench directed that the Registry may note objections on jurisdiction but must place the matter before the Court for a decision if the filer insists.

The writ petition was instituted by Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) challenging an administrative order dated 17 November 2016 issued by the Registrar (Original) of the Delhi High Court. The impugned order directed the Registry not to accept fresh execution petitions where money decrees were for sums up to ₹2 crores, on the basis that pecuniary jurisdiction for such matters lay with the District Courts following statutory enhancement. The petitioner confined its challenge to the portion of the order that barred acceptance of fresh execution petitions and did not dispute the direction relating to transfer of pending execution petitions.

Also Read: “Must Be Cured”: Supreme Court Flags Delay In Pronouncing Reserved Judgments, CJI Surya Kant To Raise Issue At High Court Chief Justices’ Conference

The petitioner contended that, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly Section 37 read with its Explanation, the court which passed the decree does not lose jurisdiction to execute it merely due to subsequent changes in pecuniary jurisdiction. It was argued that execution petitions in such cases could be filed either before the High Court or the competent District Court. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents interpreting the scope of execution jurisdiction and the meaning of a court “ceasing to have jurisdiction.”

The respondent defended the administrative order by referring to amendments enhancing pecuniary jurisdiction and submitted that the directions were intended to further statutory objectives. The dispute thus centred on whether an administrative direction could impose a threshold bar at the filing stage on execution petitions below a specified monetary value.

The Court examined the scope of the impugned administrative order and restricted its scrutiny to the legality of the direction preventing the Registry from accepting execution petitions below ₹2 crores. It observed that “it was not open to this Court, even with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, to impose a threshold bar on parties filing execution petitions in the Registry, in which the decree being executed, was for an amount below ₹ 2 crores.”

On statutory interpretation, the Court stated that “Section 4 of the Amendment Act does not envisage imposition of a threshold bar on institution of proceedings with the Registry of this Court, nor does it permit issuance of directions to the Registry not to accept proceedings which are filed before it.” It further recorded that “the power vested by Section 4 of the Amendment Act is only to transfer proceedings which are pending before this Court immediately prior to the Amendment Act to the District Court.”

Addressing first principles, the Bench observed that “no litigant can be prevented from filing a proceeding in the Registry of a Court.” It clarified that while the Registry may raise objections as to jurisdiction, “that does not empower the Registry to refuse to register the matter,” and in the event of disagreement, “the Registry would have to place the matter before the Court to take a view.”

The Court also distinguished between filing and entertainment of proceedings, noting that “there is a fundamental difference between the filing of a proceeding and entertainment of a proceeding.” It recorded that the decision on whether to entertain a matter lies on the judicial side, and “the litigant cannot be barred access to the Court by an administrative direction to the Registry not to accept the petition.”

On the argument that the court passing the decree retains execution jurisdiction, the Bench noted that such submissions “do merit consideration,” but considered it appropriate to leave that issue open for determination by the executing court on the judicial side.

Also Read: Municipal Body Must Survey Buildings Near Notified Heritage Properties To Check Illegal Constructions: Delhi High Court

The Court directed that: “Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition in part by setting aside the impugned Administrative Order dated 17 November 2016, to the extent it directs the Registry not to accept execution petitions in which the decree has been passed by this Court but is for a value of less than ₹ 2 crores.

 “It would be open to the Registry to raise an objection with respect to jurisdiction, as it always is,” but clarified that where a litigant insists on maintainability, “the Registry would be duty bound to list the matter before the Court on the judicial side, for a view to be taken in that regard.” The writ petition was thus allowed in part with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. Vibhav Mithal, Mr. Achyut Tewari, Ms. Krisha Baweja and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates.

For the Respondents:  Dr. Amit George, Advocate, with Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Mr. Bhrigu A. Pamidighantam, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Medhavi Bhatia and Mr. Kartikey Puneesh, Advocates.

Case Title: Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:812-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 1950/2018

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla