### Executing Court may interpret and clarify ambiguities in a decree to ensure effective enforcement.

The Respondents filed complaints before the NCDRC under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and delayed possession regarding a redevelopment project

On 08.12.2021, the NCDRC found the Appellant deficient for failing to pay compensation for carpet area shortages and open space deficiencies as per the agreement

The Appellant’s subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court and review applications before the NCDRC were dismissed or withdrawn

During execution proceedings, the Appellant argued that the original order was "inexecutable" because the operative part did not specify the exact square footage of the carpet area shortage

The NCDRC dismissed these applications and, on 23.08.2024, directed payment based on the shortage findings within the main order

The Appellant challenged these execution orders via Writ Petitions, which were dismissed by a Single Judge on 23.01.2026

Whether an execution order is valid if it clarifies or interprets a final order that omitted specific numerical figures in its operative portion

Whether the High Court can entertain a challenge to the merits of a final order (regarding carpet area findings) within an appeal arising out of execution proceedings

The court applied the principle that an Executing Court possesses the power to interpret, clarify, and resolve all questions relating to execution and may interpret ambiguities to ensure effective enforcement, provided it does not go behind the Decree or alter substantive rights

It further relied on the doctrine of finality of litigation, noting that issues already adjudicated in review and writ proceedings cannot be reopened in execution appeals

The Court reasoned that the Appellant was attempting to relitigate the merits of the 08.12.2021 order under the guise of an execution challenge

The NCDRC had previously held in review that the original order was "self-contained and self-speaking"

The Court found that while the operative portion of the 2021 order did not explicitly list the shortage figures, the findings were present within the body of the order and the submissions of the Respondents

Therefore, the NCDRC's execution order dated 23.08.2024 did not "go behind the decree" but rather interpreted it to ensure enforcement

Since the Appellant’s prior challenges to the main order failed, the Court held there was no jurisdictional error in the NCDRC identifying the exact area mentioned in the underlying pleadings to calculate the refund

The Court affirmed that calculating the exact carpet area shortage based on the record to enforce a final judgment is a valid exercise of an executing court’s power

All pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs