CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

Dr.RamManoharLohiyaNational
LawUniversity,Lucknow

SUBJECT:CODEOFCIVILPROCEDURE

ACADEMICYEAR:201617
Submittedon19thMarch2017

TITLE:

Delays&DifficultiesinExecutionofDecrees

Submittedto:Submittedby:

Dr.RadheyshyamPrasadAvinashMaurya
Assistantprofessor(Law)4thSemesterBA.LLB.(Hons.)
RMLNLU,LucknowRollno.35,Sec.A

1|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

Acknowledgement:
I take immense pleasure in thanking Dr. Radheyshyam Prasad, our respected teacher of
CPC, for having permitted me to carry out this project work. I express my gratitude to her for
giving me an opportunity to explore the world of information concerning my project topic.

Words are inadequate in thanking my seniors and batch mates for their support and
cooperation in carrying out the project work.

Finally, I would like to thank my family members for their blessings and wishes for the
successful completion of the project.

2|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

Table of content

Acknowledgement:..............................................................................................
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................
1.1 Object................................................................................................................................

2 Delays and difficulties in execution of decree.................................................

2.1 Requirement of documentary evidence to prove out-of-court payment of decretal

amount.........................................................................................................................................

2.2 Difficulties faced by the decree-holder in executing his decree by arrest and

detention of the judgment-debtor.................................................................................................

2.3 Statutorily imposed restrictions on the decree-holder regarding attachment of

property for the attachment of a decree.......................................................................................

2.4 Effect of amendment to S.47- Is it more beneficial to the decree holder in execution?

2.5 Stay of execution.............................................................................................................

2.5.1 Stay of execution, pending the disposal of suit between Judgment-debtor and
decree-holder..........................................................................................................................
2.6 Grounds for challenging sale of property that has been sold in execution of the

decree13

2.6.1 Movable Property....................................................................................................

2.6.2 Immovable property.................................................................................................
2.7 Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holders and auction-purchasers............

3 Conclusion........................................................................................................
4 Refererences.....................................................................................................

3|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

4|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

1 Introduction
The expression 'execution' signifies the enforcement of decrees and orders by the process of
court, so as to enable the decree-holder to realize the fruits of the decree.' Section 51, C.P.C.,
defines the jurisdiction and power of the court to enforce execution. It enumerates the
different modes in which the court may order execution of a decree according to the relief
granted in favor of a decree-holder. It is for the decree-holder to decide in which of the
several modes he will execute his decree. A decree can be enforced by delivery of any
property specified in the decree, by attachment and sale, or by sale without attachment or any
property, by arrest and detention in civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or in such manner as
the nature of the relief may require. But execution is subject to the conditions and limitations
prescribed by the Code and the discretion of the court.1

1.1 Object
This project will examine how some of these provisions of the Code have been used to cause
delay, or otherwise created difficulties, to the decree-holder in the execution process, and thus
question the feasibility of the inclusion of these provisions.

2 Delays and difficulties in execution of decree

2.1 Requirement of documentary evidence to prove out-of-court payment of

decretal amount
O21 R.2-A was added by the 1976 Amendment Act. It provides that in cases of out-of-court
payment to the decree-holder, towards part/whole satisfaction of the decree, there has to be
documentary evidence for the same. But this provision has been misused by the judgment-
debtor, who can produce forged documents before the court, to the effect that he has made
much payment to the decree-holder.

Then the court has to look into the genuineness of the document and ascertain the veracity of
the judgment-debtor's assertions. This takes up a lot of time and delays the execution of the
1 Sreenath Roy v. Radhunath Mookerjee, (1882) 9 Cal 773; Ghosh v. Bana~ee, 79 Cal WN
76; State of Rajasthan v. Savaksha, AIR 1972 Guj 179. Ibid. See Also, Umakanta v. Penwick
& Co. Ltd., AIR 1953 Cal 717; Shyam Singh v. Collector, District Hamirpur, 1993 Supp (I)
SCC 693. Ibid, See Also, Anandi Lal, v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1936 All 495(FB); Ram Lochan v.
Mahadeo Prasad, AIR 1970 All 544(FB).

5|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

decree. But it is necessary to have this rule because in case, the judgment-debtor has actually
paid the decree-holder, but the latter denies it, then the same can be proved by the production
of documentary evidence, and the judgment-debtor is not made to pay twice. Also it prevents
judgment-debtors from randomly approaching the courts and asserting that they have paid the
decree amount outside court, because without documentary evidence the court will now not
consider their Claims.

2.2 Difficulties faced by the decree-holder in executing his decree by arrest and
detention of the judgment-debtor

S.51 (c) of CPC empowers the court to order execution of a decree, by arrest and detention of
the judgment-holder in the civil prison. But there are various obstacles faced by the decree-
holder, if he desires to execute his decree, by virtue of arrest and detention of the judgment-
debtor. Some of these have been enumerated below:

a) Requirement of affidavit and notice: In an application for the arrest and detention of
the judgment-debtor in prison, the decree-holder must state or must file an affidavit
stating the grounds on which arrest is sought for. Then the court will issue a notice to
the judgment debtor to show cause as to why he should not be arrested.
b) Insolvency: The court will not order arrest in cases where the judgment-debtor, on
being served notice to explain as to why he should not be arrested, appears in court
and proves to the court's satisfaction, that he has no property-movable or immovable,
out of which to pay the decree-holder. He has to then file an application to be declared
an insolvent and produce a copy of such an application before the executing court. It
will take time for the Insolvency Court to decide whether the judgment-debtor is
actually insolvent or not, but till then the execution proceedings will be stalled. If he
is adjudged to be an insolvent, then an Official Receiver will be appointed, to look
into all the liabilities of the insolvent.
c) Mere non-payment of decretal amount not enough to warrant arrest:
d) Special Exemptions: Further, the proviso to S.51, lays down that where the members
of legislative bodies2 or any person or class of persons, whose arrest, according to the

2 S.135-A

6|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

State Government might be attended with danger or inconvenience to the public. 3 This
clearly restricts the decree-holder's right to get the decree executed by means of arrest
and detention, but special exemptions, similar to this one, have been provided to these
classes of persons in other enactments and codes also, by virtue of their special
position in society (like women, children), or the nature of their job (like legislators),
or for reasons of judicial expediency (like witnesses).
e) Premature release of arrested judgment-debtor: The judgement-holder may be
released by the court, or the government early on the ground of illness. 4 Thus
premature release of the judgement-debtor on account of illness, would interfere in
the execution of the decree also. But it has to be understood that the provisions of
S.59 are based on purely humanitarian grounds, and cannot be dispensed with.

2.3 Statutorily imposed restrictions on the decree-holder regarding attachment

of property for the attachment of a decree.
One of the modes by which execution of decree takes place is by the attachment of property,
before its sale, but this is subject to S.60 of the Code.

a) Properties exempt from attachment: S.60 declares what properties are liable to
attachment and sale in execution of a decree, and what properties are exempt there
from. The proviso to S.60(1) gives a list of properties which are exempt from
attachment and sale in the execution of a decree and the list includes: necessary
wearing apparel, cooking vessels, bedding, tools of artisans, implements of
husbandry, houses of agriculturists, wages, salaries, pensions and gratuities,
compulsory deposits, right to future maintenance, etc.5
By the 1976 Amendment Act, it has been. clarified that any agreement to waive the
benefit of any exemption under S.60 shall be void. 6 S.61 empowers the state
government to exempt agricultural produce from attachment or sale.

3 S.55(2)

4 S.59

5 Proviso to S.60(1)

7|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

b) Salary: With specific reference to salary, S 60(1) proviso (i) provides that salary shall
not be liable to attachment and sale to the extent of the first four hundred rupees and
two-thirds of the remainder in execution of a decree, other than a decree for
maintenance (in case of execution of a decree for maintenance, only one third of the
salary shall not be liable to attachment).
Further, where the attachable portion of the salary has been under attachment for a
period of 24 months, either continuously, or intermittently, such portion shall be
exempt from attachment, until the expiry of a further period of 12 months. If such
attachment has been made for a period of 24 months for the execution of the same
decree, then after 24 months, the salary shall be finally exempt from attachment for
that decree. Where more than one decree-holders have asked for attachment of the
salary of the same judgement-debtor, it is for the disbursing officer to determine what
portion of the salary is attachable and inform the court of the same, and pay
accordingly.
The reasons for these items, including a portion of the salary of the judgement-debtor
to be exempt from attachment is evident. It is to ensure that he is not denied of his
means of subsistence and of the items, necessary for his daily existence.
c) Inventory of movable property to be attached required: 7 Under O.21, R.( 12) of
the Code, when the decree-holder makes an application for attachment of movable
property belonging to the judgment-debtor, but not in his possession, he has to also
annex with the application, an inventory of the property to be attached, containing a
reasonably accurate description of the property. It is been held that the provisions of
this rule are mandatory and require strict adherence.8
Where a decree-holder fails to annex to the application for execution of the decree,
such an inventory of the property to be attached, with a reasonably accurate
description of the property to be attached, the application is not one in accordance
with law.9 Further it has been held by the court that there is no obligation on the

6 1976 Amendment Act

7 O.21, R.( 12)

8 AIR 1985 Ker 81

9 AIR 1915 All. 320

8|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

judgement-debtor to post the decree-holder with all the details of his properties. It is
the decree-holder's business to gather knowledge about the properties so that he can
realise the fruits of his decree.10
d) Description of immovable property to be attached required: 11 O.21, R.13 requires
that where an application is made for the attachment of any immovable property of
the judgement-debtor, it should contain an accurate description of such property
including its boundaries or numbers and the interest or share of the judgement-debtor
in this property. The provisions of this rule are also mandatory, but a defect in the
application can be rectified, by way of an amendment under O.6, R.17, CPC.
O.21, Rr.12 and 13 seem to impose too harsh a burden on the decree-holder, in
expecting him to find out all the necessary details of the property to be attached,
though he can make changes, by way of amendment in his application for attachment.
This is one of the provisions, which can probably be amended to make it more
conducive to the interests of the decree-holder.
e) Objections or claims to attachment: Where a property has been attached in
execution of a decree, there may be objections to such attachment either by a party or
his representative or by a third party. Adjudication of claims or objections to
attachment12 deals with adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of
property. The proviso to R.58(1) enacts that the court shall not entertain the objection
or claim where (1) before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property
attached has already been sold, or (2) where the court considers that the claim or
objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed.
In both these cases, the order refusing to entertain objection or claim is subject to
suit.13 Where the court entertains a claim or objection, it must investigate fully and not
summarily and must adjudicate upon all questions, including the questions of right,
title and interest in the property under attachment. The court shall, in accordance with
such determination,

10 AIR 1951 SC 16

11 O.21, R.13

12 021, R.58

13 R. 58(5)

9|Page
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

i. allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either
wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit;
ii. disallow the claim or objection;
iii. continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in
favour of any person;
iv. pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit.14

Thus, clearly the procedure has been laid down for how and when the court is to
adjudicate upon a claim to, or objection to attachment of property. The proviso to
0.21, R. 58 clearly states no such claim or objection shall be entertained by the court
in cases where the court considers it to be designedly, or unnecessarily delayed, or it
is made after the property attached has already been sold. This would give the
impression that the court is trying to avoid delay and harassment to the decree holder.
But if this is the object of the proviso, then it is largely defeated by the following two
things:

I. an order refusing to entertain such a claim or objection is subject to suit.

21 .15an order passed by the court after adjudicating upon the claim or
objection, is appealable, like a decree.
II. This would greatly delay the execution process. By virtue of the 1976
amendment to S.47 of the Code, all orders made therein are no longer
appealable, and the only remedy available now is to file a revision petition
against those orders. This rule is an exception to S.47, in so far as it provides
for appeals and instituting of fresh suits, in the manner provided above, and is
greatly misused by judgement-debtors to delay proceedings. But whether S.47
itself, which dispenses with the provisions for appeals is more beneficial to the
decree-holder or not, is the next question.

14 R. 58 (3)

15 0.21, R.58(5).

10 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

2.4 Effect of amendment to S.47- Is it more beneficial to the decree holder in

execution?
S.47 lays clown the principle that matters relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction
of a decree arising between the parties including a purchaser of a share in execution should be
determined in execution proceedings and not by a separate suit. In order for S.47 to apply, the
following conditions must be met:

(1) the question must be one arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree has
been passed, or their representatives; and

(2)It must relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

Where a third party has any objection to the attachment of property, after the Amendment Act
of 1976, all the questions, including the question of title shall be decided by the executing
court in the execution court and not by separate suit. 16 Before the 1976 Amendment Act,
which deleted S.47 from S.2(2), the order passed by the executing court shall have the same
force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree.17

But now the order passed under S.47 is not a deemed decree, hence it is not appealable under
S.96(first appeal) and S.100 (second appeal). Thus, the only recourse available to the party
aggrieved of the order, passes by the executing court under S.47 is to prefer a revision
application under S.115, CPC, provided the conditions laid down in S.115 are satisfied. We
need to examine whether this amendment has been beneficial to the decree-holder or not.

For this firstly, a perusal of the legislative intent behind the amendment of S.47 has to be
undertaken. The Object and Reasons, clearly states that S.47(as it stood before the
amendment in 1976), was mainly responsible for the delay in the execution of decrees, and
the Joint Committee therefore, recommended to omit the determination of a question under
S.47, from the definition of a decree under S.2(2)18. The result is that all questions between
the parties to the suit, in which the decree has been passed and their representatives should be
disposed of under S.47 and not by a separate suit, and the determination of all such questions

16 0.21, R.58(1 )&(2)

17 0.21, R.58(4).

11 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

under S.47 will no longer be appealable as a decree. But wherever any order is intended to be
appealable as a decree, a specific provision is made to that effect in the Code itself, like under
0.21, Rr.43-s(2)(c), 46-B, 46-C, 46-E, 46-H, 98, 100, 103.

Thus it is evident that the legislative intent was to dispense with the provision for appeals to
these orders passed under S.47, so as to avoid delay, so that the decree-holder could realise
the fruits of his decree quickly. Before the amendment, the judgement-debtor used to delay
execution endlessly, by filing for appeals. Now, only revision can be preferred under the
limited grounds provided under s.115. But though this amendment sought to make S.47 more
beneficial to the decree-holder and to expedite execution of the decree, it has also had its
pitfalls for the decree-holder. He himself is also bound by the provisions of S.47 and cannot
prefer an appeal, when the order is against his interests.

ILLUSTRATION: Suppose A is the judgement-debtor, who contends that he has paid the
decree amount outside court to the decree-holder. As proof, he submits some forged
documents. But the executing court fails to notice that these documents are forged and
adjudges that the decree-holder has been paid outside court. Now, B, after the amendment to
S.47 cannot prefer an appeal to this order of the executing court. The only recourse open to
him is to file a revision petition under S.115. But in revision, the court will not go into
appreciation of evidence, so in effect, B will be left with no relief. Thus, though the
amendment was to dispense with appeals under S.47, to save the decree-holder the
harassment of undue delay, in execution of his decree, the provision has been used by
dishonest judgement-debtors to forge documents and to deny the decree-holder of execution
itself.

2.5 Stay of execution

Under 0.21, R.26, CPC, the executing court can stay execution only for a reasonable time and
only for particular purposes, so as to enable the judgment-debtor to approach the court which
passed the decree and to:

18 The committee note that according to the definition of the expresssion 'decree' given in the Code, the
determination of any question under S.47 merits to a decree, and as such, an appeal and second appeal would lie
against such determination. The Committee is of the view that this provision of the Code is responsible for the
delay in the execuuon of the decrees. The Committee, therefore felt that the definition of the term 'decree' should
be amended so that the determination of the question under S.47 may not amount to a decree,"

12 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

i. get the decree amended

ii. show that the decree is satisfied or is not existing
iii. get the decree passed against him on the ground that it was obtained by fraud
iv. show that the decree is barred by limitation

2.5.1 Stay of execution, pending the disposal of suit between Judgment-debtor and
decree-holder

1. Rule 29, 0.21 provides for stay of execution, pending disposal of suit between judgement-
debtor and decree-holder. For this rule to apply, there must be two simultaneous proceedings
in court:

(a) a proceeding in execution of the decree at the instance of the decree-holder against the
judgement-debtor and, a suit at the instance of the judgement-debtor against the decree-
holder.19

The provisions of Rule 29 are not mandatory, but discretionary; 20 The discretion, however
must be exercised judicially, and in the interests of justice, and not mechanically and as a
matter of course. 21 It cannot be exercised so as to allow a party to abuse the process of law.22

The essence of this provision is expressed very, accurately in the words of Mitra, J., in the
case of Judhisthir v. Surendra23 :

19 Shaukat Hussain v. Bhuneshwari Devi, AIR 1973 SC 528; Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir,
AIR 1982 SC,686; Hansraj v. Satnarain, AIR 1957 Raj 219; Subhash Kumar v. Sheo Balak,
AIR 1975 Pat 307.

20 Anop Chand v, Hirachand, AIR 1962 Raj. 223; Quazi Rahman v. Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976
Gau 39.

21 Quazi Rahman v . Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39; Quazi Rehman iv. Sital Prasad, AIR
1977 Gau 2

22 Quazi Rahman v Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39;

23 Judhisthir v. Surendra, AIR 1969 On 233.

13 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

"the fundamental consideration is that the decree has been obtained by a party and he should
not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good reasons. Until that decree is set
aside, it stands good and it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that another suit
to set aside the decree might succeed----- the decree must be allowed to be executed, and
unless an extraordinary case is made out, no stay should be granted. Even if stay is granted,
it must be on suitable terms so that the earlier decree is not stifled."24

The reasoning stems from the principle that a judgement-debtor may not be harassed, or
deprived of the fruits of the decree, merely because a suit has been subsequently been filed
for setting aside that decree.

2.6 Grounds for challenging sale of property that has been sold in execution of
the decree

2.6.1 Movable Property

To challenge sale of movable property the applicant has to approach the court under 0.21,
R.78, and for immovable property, under 0.21, r.90, C.P.C. Under both these rules, he has to
prove two things:

(1) there was irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of movable property, and
(2) injury was vas caused by virtue of this irregularity to particular person by any other
person

If these two conditions are satisfied under 0.21, R.78, then the sale of movable property does
not get vitiated. But the person aggrieved can institute a suit against the person responsible
for such irregularity and injury to him, for the recovery of the specific property (if that person
is the purchaser), or alternatively, for compensation.

24 Ibid at 234. See Also, Quazi Rahman v. Nurbanu Bibi, AIR 1976 Gau 39; Quazi Rehman
iv. Sital Prasad, AIR 1977 Gau 25.

14 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

2.6.2 Immovable property

In the case of immovable property, if the above two conditions are satisfied under 0.21, R.90,
then the person aggrieved can file an application before the executing court, to get such sale
set aside.

Though these provisions call for interference in execution, they rightfully do so. The burden
is very high on the person challenging the sale, to not only prove irregularity or fraud in
publishing or conducting the sale, but also to prove injury to himself by virtue of such fraud
or irregularity. Further, the sale can be set aside only in such cases where the property is
immovable. But for movable property where the entire sum has already been paid and no
further confirmation to the sale is required, to avoid any hardship to the auction-purchaser, it
has been stated that such sale will not be vitiated. The purpose of these provisions is basically
to prevent any hardship to the judcernent-debtor, where there has clearly been irregularity or
fraud in matters of sale, thus affecting him prejudicially. For example, where there is
connivance between the decree-holder, the sale officer and the auction purchaser to sell the
property off at a low price, these provisions provide redressal to the judgement-debtor. But
these provisions have been misused by the judgement-debtors, to unnecessarily delay matters
and harass the decree-holder, by filing applications under these rules, without any basis.

2.7 Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holders and auction-

purchasers

S.74 and Rules 97-103 of 0.21 deal with resistance to delivery of possession to decree holders
and auction-purchasers. Under R.97, where the decree-holder or auction-purchaser of
immovable property is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of such
property, he may make an application to the court complaining of such resistance or
obstruction. Under R.99, any person other than the Judgement-debtor, if dispossessed by the
decree-holder or auction-purchaser, may make an application to the court complaining of
such dispossession. The court shall on application under R.97 or R.99, proceed to adjudicate
upon it as per R.101. The court will hold full-fledged inquiry, and not just a summary inquiry
and determine upon all questions, including the questions of right, title and interest in the
property under attachment.

15 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

Accordingly, the court shall either:

(a) order the auction-purchaser or decree-holder to be put in possession where it is

satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause, by
the Judgement-debtor, or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf or by
any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or the
execution proceeding.
(b) if the applicant is resisted or obstructed even thereafter in obtaining possession, the
court may at the instance of the applicant order the osbtructor to be detained in prison
upto 30 days.
(c) order the dispossessed person to be put back into possession pass such order as in the
circumstances of the case it deems fit.

These rules discussed above, represent the last stage at which the court can interfere in
matters concerning execution. Strictly speaking, execution has already been ordered, but
these rules provide resort to the aggrieved parties, for problems arising after execution has
been ordered.

If we look at the case law of the Supreme Court also regarding interference in execution of
civil process, we find that the court is reluctant to interfere in matters decided by the
executing Court The places the court has interfered is:

(a) where the lower courts have wrongly interfered and to set "aside their orders;

(b) where the executing court has looked into matters which it is not supposed to, like legality
of the decree, or limitation period etc,

(c) where non-interference would result in gross injustice to one of the parties.

16 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

3 Conclusion
Thus, after an examination of various provisions relating to execution of the decree, which
depose problems to the decree-holder, it is the author's opinion that despite these difficulties,
the legislative wisdom in incorporating these provisions is justified. The legislative intent
behind the various provisions examined seems to be, to strike a balance between the rights of
the judgement-debtor and the decree-holder, mainly:

the right of the decree-holder to get the fruits of his decree,

to realise the contractual obligations owed to him; and
the right of the judgement-debtor to reasonable and fair procedure under Art.14, of the
Constitution and a guarantee of certain safeguards.

These provisions are mostly there to safeguard the interests of honest judgement-debtors. The
problems are not being posed by these provisions to the decree-holders, but by the misuse of
these provisions, by dishonest judgement-debtors. If we dispense with these provisions it will
be unjust to the honest judgement-debtors, and may, also be detrimental to the decree-holder.

For example, the 1976 amendment to S.47 was made with the object of preventing delay, by
dispensing with appeals to orders passed therein, and thus, expediting the execution process.
But as has been seen above, this too has its pitfalls, because it denies the decree-holder also
the forum of appeal, in cases where the revisional proceedings are unable to address
grievances of the decree-holder, which could have been properly handled in an appeal, like
appreciation of evidence.

Further, there are some provisions, which are there for the benefit of both decree-holder and
judgement-debtor, like resorting to the court when there is resistance to, or obstruction in
possession of property by decree-holder or auction-purchaser. Thus, just because these
provisions are open to abuse, that by itself, is not rationale enough to warrant the deletion of
these provisions from the Code and deny the judgement-debtors, as a class of the benefit and
protection of these provisions.

17 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

4 Refererences

Books referred

Thakker, C.K, (Takwani) Civil Procedure Code, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Company, Kolkata,
2006
Halsburys Law of India, Vol.7, Civil Procedure, Butterworths Lexis Nexis, New Delhi 2002.
Pollock & Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure, 13th edition by P.M. Bakshi, Butterworths
India, New Delhi 2000.

Statutory compilation

Civil Procedure Code Act, 1908.

Internet Sites

http://www.manupatra.com
http://www.indiankanoon.org
http://www.law.umkc.eduvotes.com
http://www.judic.nic.in
http://www.courtnic.nic.in
http://www.lawmin.nic.in

18 | P a g e
 CPC ProjectDelays & Difficulties in Execution of Decrees

19 | P a g e