Ramesh v. Harbans Nagpal & Ors.
Background
The appellant had purchased rights to a roof/terrace portion of a Delhi property and built on it. The property's co-owner later sued several family members and the appellant, alleging encroachment of a "chhajja" (overhanging ledge/balcony), but the suit plaint never specified the chhajja's exact dimensions or attached a plan. After a procedurally tangled history, an ex-parte order, restoration, and a compromise between some of the original defendants, the suit was decreed in the appellant's absence, without any dimensions being fixed. Years later, at the execution stage, the plaintiff sought to amend the decree to add specific measurements, which the Delhi High Court allowed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that because neither the original plaint nor the decree itself contained or referred to any dimensions or sketch of the disputed chhajja, introducing precise measurements for the first time at the execution stage would improperly rewrite the decree rather than merely clarify it, something the law does not permit at the execution stage. The trial court's refusal to amend the decree on this basis had been correct, and the High Court's directions to the contrary were set aside. The Court also left open the appellant's still-pending application to set aside the original ex-parte decree, to be decided on its own merits.
Lesson Learnt
A court executing a decree can only enforce what the decree itself says: it cannot use the execution stage to add new factual details (like precise measurements) that were never part of the original judgment or decree.