An executing court cannot transpose a judgment-debtor as co-applicant in the decree-holder’s execution proceeding.

The petitioners, original plaintiffs, obtained a decree entitling them to recover ₹30 lakh with 6% interest from respondent No. 1, the original first defendant. The decree separately provided that the plaintiffs and respondent No. 1 could, if they so chose, jointly execute it to recover the amount from defendants Nos. 2 to 4.

The petitioners filed Special Execution Petition No. 14 of 2020 seeking recovery from respondent No. 1; although they joined respondents Nos. 2 to 4, no relief was sought against them. The Executing Court allowed respondent No. 1 to be transposed as a co-applicant. The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, stating they did not intend to pursue execution against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 at that stage.

Whether the Executing Court could transpose respondent No. 1, a judgment-debtor in the execution petition, as a co-applicant when the petitioners sought execution only against him

Whether allowing the transposition was an irregularity warranting correction under Article 227 of the Constitution

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to correct a jurisdictional error or gross irregularity by a subordinate court. An executing court must act within the terms of the decree and cannot go beyond it.

Where a decree gives a decree-holder an independent right to recover from a judgment-debtor, the execution of that right is distinct from any separate provision permitting joint execution against other parties.

The decree entitled the petitioners to recover the decretal amount from respondent No. 1, while permitting the petitioners and respondent No. 1 to jointly execute against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 if they chose to do so.

The pending execution petition sought relief only against respondent No. 1. By transposing him as a co-applicant, the Executing Court disregarded his status as the judgment-debtor in that proceeding and the limited relief sought, thereby acting beyond the decree and committing a gross irregularity. The petitioners’ stated intention not to proceed against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 supported directing their deletion from the execution petition.

It allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the Executing Court’s order dated 2 July 2021, and directed the petitioners to seek deletion of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 from the execution petition. The Executing Court was directed to decide the execution petition as early as possible, preferably within three months of receiving the order.