Executing courts cannot direct payment of amounts absent from the decree.

The Decree Holder sought execution of a consent decree dated 10 January 2017, which permanently restrained the judgment debtors and related persons from using “DPS,” “Delhi Public School,” or identical or deceptively similar marks and accepted certain undertakings.

The Decree Holder alleged subsequent use of similar marks and sought, among other reliefs, payment of ₹96,50,717, said to represent revenue earned through franchises.

The judgment debtors submitted that relevant franchise agreements had expired, steps had been taken to cancel a trademark application, the relevant website had been taken down, and undertakings to comply with the decree had been given.

The decree itself contained no direction requiring payment of franchise revenue to the Decree Holder.

1. Whether the executing court could direct payment of ₹96,50,717 when that relief was not included in the decree under execution.

2. Whether any further directions were required in the execution proceedings in light of the judgment debtors’ stated compliance measures and undertakings.

Under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an executing court must enforce the decree as it stands and cannot grant relief beyond it or create a new decree.

In Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P., (1996) 5 SCC 728, and Deepa Bhargava v. Mahesh Bhargava, (2009) 2 SCC 294, the Supreme Court held that an executing court cannot grant relief not contained in the decree or modify it.

Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 479, reiterates that a court interpreting a decree in execution cannot draw a new decree.

The Court considered the claimed franchise revenue but found no payment obligation in the 2017 decree. Directing payment of ₹96,50,717 in execution would therefore exceed the decree’s terms and impermissibly create a new relief, contrary to the governing execution principles.

The Court also took account of the steps and undertakings reported by the judgment debtors, including the expiry of the disclosed franchise agreements, the removal of the website, and undertakings concerning use of the protected names and crest; it concluded that no further execution directions were warranted.

Finding no need for further directions, it disposed of the execution petition and pending applications, while preserving the Decree Holder’s liberty to pursue other appropriate remedies available in law, including concerning the franchises.