Civil Litigation · 3 April 2026 · 9 min read
A decree that cannot be executed is an expensive piece of paper. Practitioners spend years on trial and appeal and then discover, at execution, that the decree does not describe what is to be delivered, or describes property that cannot be identified on the ground.
The prevention is done in the plaint. Property must be described so that a bailiff can identify it without interpretation: khasra numbers, area, boundaries, and a site plan annexed and referred to in the prayer. Relief must be framed so that the operative order is capable of execution — a decree for possession of “the suit land” is only as good as the schedule it refers back to.
At execution the judgment debtor’s objections tend to fall into familiar categories: that the decree is a nullity for want of jurisdiction, that the property is not the property decreed, that a third party is in possession in his own right, or that the decree has been satisfied in part. Each is met by material, and most of that material has to exist from the beginning.
Where third-party possession is anticipated, consider whether the person should be joined during the suit rather than left to obstruct execution afterwards. Where the judgment debtor is likely to dissipate assets, attachment before judgment is worth its cost.
Execution is also where interest and costs are quantified. Compute them, do not claim them generally; the executing court will grant a computation it can check against the decree.
Pawan Kishore Jandial
Advocate, P K Jandial & Associates
Writes on procedure and practice in the courts at Udhampur and Jammu. Notes here are general and are not advice on any particular matter.