### Executing Court may interpret and clarify ambiguities to ensure effective enforcement of a self-contained decree.

The Respondents filed complaints before the NCDRC against the Appellant (developer) under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and delayed possession.

On 08.12.2021, the NCDRC found the Appellant liable for shortage in carpet area and delayed possession, directing compensation @ ₹24,650/- per sq. ft. plus interest.

The Appellant’s subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court and Review Applications before the NCDRC were dismissed.

During execution, the Appellant filed applications contending that the 2021 order was "inexecutable" because the operative part did not specify the exact quantum of area shortage.

The NCDRC dismissed these objections on 23.08.2024, calculating the dues based on findings within the body of the order and Respondents' submissions.

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 interprets and specifies the quantum of compensation based on the body of the main judgment when the operative part contains an ambiguity regarding the exact area shortage.

Whether the Appellant can re-agitate the merits or "non-executability" of a final order in execution proceedings after their review petitions and challenges to the main order have already been dismissed.

The Court applied the principle that an Executing Court possesses the inherent power to interpret, clarify, and resolve questions relating to the execution of a decree, including interpreting ambiguities to ensure effective enforcement.

This power must be exercised without "going behind the decree" or altering substantive rights.

Furthermore, under the Consumer Protection Act and general civil law, once an order becomes final (after the exhaustion of appellate and review remedies), it is "self-contained" and cannot be reopened or re-examined by the same or a lower forum.

The Court reasoned that the Appellant’s objection regarding the "missing quantum" in the operative portion of the 2021 order had already been addressed in previous litigation stages, including the Supreme Court withdrawal and the dismissal of Review Applications.

The Court found that the NCDRC, in its capacity as an executing body, acted within its jurisdiction by using the findings contained within the main order and the underlying record to determine the exact shortage in carpet area.

The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that specifying the area based on the record constituted "going behind the decree"; instead, it held that the execution order dated 23.08.2024 merely interpreted and implemented the existing judgment.

Since the Writ Petitions against the Review dismissal were also dismissed on 07.01.2026, the finality of the 2021 order precluded any further challenges to its executability.

The Court affirmed that an executing court can clarify ambiguities to ensure the decree's enforcement, and since the 2021 order was "self-speaking," the specification of the actual area shortage was a valid exercise of interpretative power.

All pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.