Allowed¶29

Kurban Rasool v. Batul

Executing Court – amendment of decree

Uttarakhand HC10 Nov 2025WPMS/2040/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kurban Rasool and Others v. Batul and Others; High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; Writ Petition Misc. Single Nos. 2040 and 2042 of 2022; decided 10.11.2025 by Pankaj Purohit, J. (oral); amendment of decree by Executing Court impermissible; Section 47 CPC objections in execution; Order VI Rule 17 and Sections 152 and 153 CPC; Execution Case No.06 of 2013; Civil Revision No.52 of 2017 and Misc. Case No.01 of 2017; specific performance decree dated 27.11.1989; writ petitions allowed; Revisional Court order dated 25.05.2022 set aside; Executing Court order dated 06.04.2017 affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed; impugned order dated 25.05.2022 of the Revisional Court set aside; Executing Court's order dated 06.04.2017 in Misc. Case No.04 of 2015 dismissing the amendment application affirmed. ¶29

Kurban Rasool Vs Batul — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:9877

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

10 November, 2025

¶4

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2040 of 2022

¶5

Kurban Rasool and Others --Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Batul and Others --Respondents

¶8

With

¶9

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2042 of 2022

¶10

Kurban Rasool and Others --Petitioners Versus Batul and Others --Respondents

¶11

Presence :-

¶12

Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nikhil Singhal and Mr. Sunil Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

¶15

Since these writ petitions are arising out of a common judgment and order dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Haridwar, hence, they are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By means of writ petition No.2040 of 2022 (M/S), petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil Revision No.52 of 2017 Smt. Batul and Others Vs. Kurban Rasool and Others .

¶16

¶17

2025:UHC:9877

¶18

By means of writ petition No.2042 of 2022 (M/S), petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in Misc. Case No.01 of 2017 Smt. Batul and Others Vs. Kurban Rasool and Others .

¶19

The facts given rise of these two writ petitions in brief are that an Original Suit No.106 of 1987 Maksood Vs. Mazeed , was filed by Maksood i.e. predecessor of respondents, for specific performance before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar, which was decreed vide judgment and order dated 27.11.1989. The judgment and order dated 27.11.1989 has attained finality upto the level of Hon’ble Apex Court. The decree was put to execution by the plaintiff-decree holder before the learned Executing Court, which was registered as Execution Case No.06 of 2013 Maksood (deceased) Vs. Kurban and Others . In the said execution, objection under Section 47 CPC has been filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors. Thereafter, during the pendency of said execution case, respondent preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 152 and 153 CPC seeking amendment in decree dated 27.11.1989. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 in Misc. Case No.04 of 2015 Maksood Vs. Kurbaan and others , dismissed the application/paper No.4Ka filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment in the decree, holding that plaintiffs/decree holders have not preferred any objections against the objections filed by defendant/

¶20

¶21

2025:UHC:9877

¶22

judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC, further whether the decree is enforceable or not would be ascertained at the time of disposal of objection of judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC. Respondents-decree holders challenged the said order dated 06.04.2017 by filing a Civil Revision No.52 of 2017 Smt. Batul and Others Vs. Kurban Rasool and Others and Misc. Case No.01 of 2017 Smt. Batul and Others Vs. Kurban Rasool and Others , before the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Haridwar, which was allowed by a common judgment and order dated 25.05.2022. Feeling aggrieved, petitionersjudgment debtors are before this Court.

¶23

It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is that as to whether learned Executing Court can amend the decree passed by the learned Trial Court or not and particularly, when the said decree has been affirmed up to the level of Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶24

It is further contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.2022 has been passed by learned Revisional Court by a common judgment, whereby, Civil Revision No.52 of 2017 and Misc. Case No.01 of 2017 were allowed and the order dated 06.04.2017 passed in Misc. Case No.04 of 2015 Maksood Vs. Kurbaan and others , was set aside and learned Executing Court was directed to amend the decree in the light of order passed by learned Revisional Court.

¶25

¶26

2025:UHC:9877

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the order passed by learned Revisional Court is perfect and within the four corners of the law.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order impugned in both the writ petitions. Having gone through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that such order cannot be passed which is completely in violation of the settled principles and proposition of law, whereby, it is propounded that a decree cannot be amended by an Executing Court.

¶29

In such view of the matter, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned Revisional Court is hereby set aside and the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by learned Executing Court in Misc. Case No.04 of 2015 Maksood Vs. Kurbaan and others , is affirmed.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

( Pankaj Purohit, J .) 10.11.2025

¶32

¶33

Kurban Rasool v. Batul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurban Rasool v. Batul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Basnet Vs Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi

Sanjay Jakhmola Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shah Aalam Vs Sayyad Salamat Ali

Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs Shashibala Agarwal

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Km. Preeti (Minor)

Suresh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand through Collector