The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an executing court has no jurisdiction to return an execution petition at the stage of registration by questioning the decree holder’s entitlement to damages, when such damages are already granted in the decree. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, while allowing a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, emphasized that “the executing court cannot go behind the decree nor question its legality or correctness.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Yenduri Srinivasa Rao, had filed an Execution Petition (E.P.) in O.S. No. 423 of 2018 to enforce a decree passed in his favour. However, the executing court returned the petition on May 17, 2025, raising an objection that the decree holder (DHR) must explain how he is entitled to damages when arrears of rent have already been granted. The court also asked for detailed calculations.
The petitioner re-submitted the E.P. on June 16, 2025, clarifying that the decree awarded damages in addition to the arrears of rent. Nevertheless, the court returned the E.P. again on June 28, 2025, asking the petitioner to enclose a copy of the judgment and reiterating its earlier objection.
Decree in O.S. No. 423 of 2018
The decree passed by the trial court directed the defendant to:
- Vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property within three months;
- Pay ₹22,500 towards arrears of rent;
- Pay ₹4,500 per month from May 1, 2018, until delivery of possession as damages for use and occupation;
- Pay ₹9,240 towards costs of the suit.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Tilhari noted that point (iii) of the decree clearly awarded damages for use and occupation in addition to the arrears of rent. The High Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that the executing court had no authority to question this at the stage of registration.
The judgment cited three Supreme Court precedents to reinforce the principle that executing courts cannot go behind the decree:
- Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662 – “An executing court cannot go behind the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness, except for lack of inherent jurisdiction.”
- Sanwarlal Agrawal v. Ashok Kumar Kothari, (2023) 7 SCC 307 – “It is a well-settled principle that a court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: it must take the decree as it stands.”
- Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1395 – “The executing court cannot examine the validity of the order unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction.”
Justice Tilhari held:
“The registration of the execution petition cannot be refused on any such ground, on which Execution Petition has been returned in the present case.”
He further clarified that any question regarding the executability of the decree or jurisdictional issues can be addressed only after the registration of the E.P., not before.
Final Order
Allowing the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court directed:
- The original Execution Petition be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the Execution Court.
- The Execution Court must register the E.P. after examining the decree.
- The petitioner must submit a copy of the trial court’s judgment in O.S. No. 423 of 2018, as directed by the Execution Court.
There was no order as to costs, and all pending interlocutory applications stood closed.
Case Title: Yenduri Srinivasa Rao v. M. Srinivasa Rao
Citation: Civil Revision Petition No. 1624 of 2025
