1 year ago
Iam shop owner I filled execution application against tenant for vacant the shop and district Court order possession of warrant against tenant what's procedure of possession of warrant and in possession of warrant Court person will come for vacant the shop or police will come ?
You may read Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code which is as follows:
Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the solemn
act of execution of the decrees passed by the Courts from grassroots to the
top. Ultimately, after the judgment attains finality or where there is no stay
in the execution by any Appellate or Revisional Court, it is the Court of
original jurisdiction which performs this sacred act of implementation of the
execution. It has been often seen that in view of less number of units
prescribed for execution of the decree, the executions are not give that much
time and importance as required and desired. It is only the execution, which
reveals and signifies the importance of the decrees to be passed and the
pedestal of the Court and sanctity of the document. As such, the decrees are
required to be executed with force, so that the Decree Holder having a
document containing declaration of his rights may not feel cheated or
helpless having earned no fruits of the lis got settled by him from the Court
even after spending decades altogether.
This Order can be divided into six parts. If the Courts deal the
executions while considering the applications/objections topic wise, it would
be easy for them to adjudicate the matter easily. The main classification is
(1) Applications for execution and the process to be applied.
(2) Stay of executions.
(3) Mode of executions.
(4) Sale of immovable property and movable property.
(5) Adjudication of the claims and objections.
(6) Resistance and delivery of possession.
Order 21 Rule 1 CPC : Method of adjustment in money decree -
Order 21 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the modes of
paying the money decree. First of all, the Court should appropriate the
amount towards interest, then towards the costs and thereafter, towards
the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards
specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit and
intimating the decree holder of his intention. This Order also provides
mode for executing the decrees and implementation of even decrees of
specific performance, permanent injunction, restitution of conjugal rights
and possession etc.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union
of India, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 207, has observed as under:-
26. Thus, in cases of execution of money decrees or award decrees,
or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to
run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit. It is true
that if the amount falls short, the decree holder may be entitled to
apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first
towards the interest, then towards the costs and then towards the
principal amount due under the decree. But the fact remains that
to the extent of the deposit, no further interest is payable thereon to
the decree holder and there is no question of the decree holder
claiming a re-appropriation when it is found that more amounts are
due to him and the same is also deposited by the judgment debtor.
In other words, the scheme does not contemplate a reopening of the
satisfaction to the extent it has occurred by the deposit. No further
interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal.
27. As an illustration, we can take the following situation.
Suppose, a decree is passed for a sum of Rs.5,000/- by the trial
court along with interest and costs and the judgment debtor deposits
the same and gives notice to the decree holder either by
approaching the executing court under Order XXI Rule 2 of the
Code or by making the deposit in the execution taken out by the
decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code. The decree
holder is not satisfied with the decree of the trial court. He goes up
in appeal and the appellate court enhances the decree amount to
Rs.10,000/- with interest and costs. The rule in terms of Order XXI
Rule 1, as it now stands, in the background of Order XXIV would
clearly be, that the further obligation of the judgment debtor is only
to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- decreed by the
appellate court with interest thereon from the date the interest is
held due and the costs of the appeal. The decree holder would not
be entitled to say that he can get further interest even on the sum of
Rs.5,000/- decreed by the trial court and deposited by the judgment
debtor even before the enhancement of the amount by the appellate
court or that he can re-open the transaction and make a reappropriation of interest first on Rs.10,000/-, costs and then the
principal and claim interest on the whole of the balance sum again.
Certainly, at both stages, if there is short-fall in deposit, the decree
holder may be entitled to apply the deposit first towards interest,
then towards costs and the balance towards the principal. But that
is different from saying that in spite of his deposit of the amounts
decreed by the trial court, the judgment debtor would still be liable
for interest on the whole of the principal amount in case the
appellate court enhances the same and awards interest on the
enhanced amount. This position regarding execution of money
decrees has now become clear in the light of the amendments to
Order XXI Rule 1 by Act 104 of 1976. The argument that what is
awarded by the appellate court is the amount that should have been
awarded by the trial court and so looked at, until the entire
principal is paid, the decree holder would be entitled to interest on
the amount awarded by the appellate court and therefore he can
seek to make a re-appropriation by first crediting the amount
deposited by the judgment debtor pursuant to the decree of the trial
court towards the cost in both the courts, towards the interest due
on the entire amount and only thereafter towards the principal, is
not justified on the scheme of Order XXI Rule 1 understood in the
context of Order XXIV Rules 1 to 4 of the Code. The principle
appears to be that if a part of the principal has been paid along with
interest due thereon, as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit,
interest on that part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter.
In other words, there is no obligation on the judgment debtor to pay
interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or