Madras High Court Dismisses Document Plea At Execution Stage | Says Executing Court Cannot Go Beyond Terms Of Decree
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for production of documents during execution proceedings. The court held that no interference was warranted with the executing court's order, stating that "an executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree." The petition was found to be belated, unjustified, and intended to delay execution. Consequently, both the civil revision petition and its connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed with no costs.
The matter originated from a civil suit filed in 2012 before the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore. A preliminary decree in the suit for partition was passed on 06.01.2014, followed by a final decree on 05.10.2018. An Execution Petition (E.P. No. 151 of 2021) was initiated to enforce the decree.
The petitioners, who were Judgment Debtors 3, 5, 6, and 45 in the execution proceedings and defendants in the original suit, filed E.A. No. 4 of 2024 seeking production of documents. This application was made under Section 151 read with Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The documents sought were: (i) a judgment copy in O.S. No. 100 of 2012; (ii) an appeal memorandum in A.S. No. 94 of 2014; and (iii) a tax receipt relating to T.S. No. 8/575.
The petitioners contended that these documents were necessary for effectively contesting the execution proceedings. Their counsel argued that denying an opportunity to produce the documents would cause serious injustice.
Respondents 1 to 7, 9 to 15, 17, and 18, represented by their counsel, opposed the petition, stating that the application was merely an attempt to delay execution. They stated that the documents in question dated back to 2012 and 2014 and questioned the absence of any explanation for the delay in seeking their production.
The executing court, after considering the arguments, dismissed the petition. It held that the petitioners failed to explain why the documents were not secured earlier, especially during the prolonged period between the preliminary and final decrees and the subsequent initiation of execution proceedings. The executing court also noted that the delivery of possession had already been completed, and the decree holders had taken possession. The current application had been filed only after a possession receipt was submitted to the court.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioners approached the High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC.
The High Court examined the entire factual matrix and submissions made by both parties. It found no merit in the petitioners' case and upheld the decision of the executing court.
The court recorded "An analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the copies of the documents produced before this Court, prima facie, reveals that the documents sought to be produced are (i) Judgment Copy in O.S.No.100 of 2012; (ii) Appeal Memorandum in A.S.No.94 of 2014; and (iii) Tax Receipt in respect of T.S.No.8/575."
It further noted "Admittedly, the documents sought to be produced are of the year 2012 and 2014. The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 06.01.2014 and the final decree was passed on 5.10.2018. The Execution Petition was filed in the year 2021."
The court questioned the lack of explanation for the delay: "No valid reason or explanation has been stated by the petitioners about the necessity or relevancy of those documents for deciding the execution petition. Further no valid explanation was given by the petitioners for not taking any steps to obtain those documents for all these years."
Addressing the nature of the proceedings, the court cited procedural law: "It is a settled principle of law that an executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree."
The court analysed the applicability of Order XI Rule 12 of CPC, stating “A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the petition under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC can be used during the trial stage to obtain information from the other party and the rule is designed to facilitate the discovery of relevant documents during trial to ensure a fair and just outcome of the case."
On the attempt to reopen proceedings after delivery, the court remarked "In this case, after the execution petition was filed, the encroachers in the property had vacated and the decree holder had already taken possession. Only at the time when the possession receipt was filed in the court for recording delivery of possession, the petitioners had filed E.A.No.3 of 2024 to reopen the EP..."
The court found that the application was a delaying tactic and concluded that the executing court had rightly dismissed it.
The High Court issued the following final direction: "The civil revision petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No Costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s. C. Deivasigamani, Advocate
For the Respondents: M/s. L. Mouli, Advocate
Case Title: J. Jeyalakshmi & Ors. vs. Tmt. Lingiammal & Ors.
Case Number: C.R.P. No.1246 of 2025 and CMP. No.7495 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
[Read/Download order]
