A decree falling below ₹2 crore after settlement can still be executed by Delhi High Court if the original commercial suit exceeded the threshold

The Decree Holder (DH) and Judgment Debtors (JDs) entered into a franchise arrangement in 2013, followed by a supplementary agreement in 2015.

After disputes arose, the DH sued for recovery of Rs. 2,53,66,750.

The parties settled, and on 19 July 2018 the High Court decreed the suit in accordance with their Settlement Deed.

The decree was for Rs. 1,19,43,000.

In execution proceedings, JD No. 4 objected that the High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the amount sought to be recovered was below Rs. 2 crores

The Court reserved the question of maintainability for decision

1. Whether the High Court could entertain execution of its decree when the decretal amount was below its Rs. 2 crore pecuniary threshold, although the original suit had been filed for an amount exceeding that threshold

2. Whether the Commercial Courts Act displaced the application of Sections 37 and 38 CPC to execution of the decree

Sections 37 and 38 CPC identify the court which passed a decree and provide that a decree may be executed by that court or by a court to which it is transferred; Section 39 CPC governs transfer of a decree to another competent court

A change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court that passed a decree does not, by itself, extinguish that court’s jurisdiction to execute it. The Court relied on Gulab Chand Sharma v. Saraswati Devi, 1974 SCC OnLine Del 202, and Pearey Lal and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s Jamuna Properties (P) Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 11, for that principle

Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act applies the CPC, as amended by that Act, to trials of commercial disputes of specified value; the Court held that Sections 37 and 38 CPC therefore apply to execution of decrees passed in such suits

The Court also considered Asian Patent Attorneys Assn. (Indian Group) v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 360, which had left the judicial determination of the issue open

The Court reasoned that the relevant jurisdictional question was whether the court that passed the decree retained authority to execute it, not whether the settlement reduced the decretal amount below the current pecuniary threshold. The original commercial suit claimed Rs. 2,53,66,750—above the threshold—and the High Court passed the decree in that suit

Under Sections 37 and 38 CPC, a change in pecuniary jurisdiction does not make the decree court cease to exist or automatically remove its execution jurisdiction. The Commercial Courts Act did not produce a different result because the CPC provisions governing execution remained applicable

The cited Division Bench decision did not decide the present maintainability question and therefore did not bar the petition

It rejected JD No. 4’s maintainability objection and directed that the matter be listed before the Roster Bench on 14 October 2026