PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

                [2025] 10 S.C.R. 395 : 2025 INSC 1214

                             Prem Aggarwal
                                   v.
                           Mohan Singh & Ors.
            (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26593 of 2025)
                               07 October 2025
              [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant has been unnecessarily delaying and causing
       obstruction in the execution of the decree.

                                  Headnotes†
       Decree – Execution of Decree – After this Court on 01.04.2025
       set aside the decree but moulded equitable relief by directing
       payment of ₹2,00,00,000/-, the appellant refused the tender
       and obstructed execution:
       Held: The defendants-respondents tried to make the payment
       to the plaintiff-appellant but they declined to accept the same
       and as such execution proceedings were initiated in which the
       defendants deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores by way
       of Fixed Deposits in the name of the plaintiff – The appellant
       has been unnecessarily delaying and causing obstruction in the
       execution of the decree – There is no default on the part of the
       defendants in complying with the direction of this Court to pay
       the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the appellant – What has
       been awarded by the judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 is
       a whopping amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as against the earnest
       money of Rs. 25,000/- – Merely because the fact of possession
       was not pointed out at the time of hearing, the appellant as an
       unscrupulous litigant has been resisting the delivery of possession
       and has dragged the respondents up to this Court – The appellant
       had lost in the suit for permanent injunction and now having lost
       in the suit for specific performance of contract cannot claim to
       hold on to the possession or insist that the defendants should file
       a separate suit for possession – The compensation of Rupees
       Two Crores was awarded only to bring an end to the litigation
       and put a quietus – The plaintiff wants to take undue advantage
       of an omission in the judgment dated 01.04.2025, wherein this
* Author
396                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Court did not clarify that possession would be handed over
       to the respondent upon receipt of the amount awarded – The
       Court, acting as in appendage of justice, cannot permit its own
       procedure or inadvertent lapse to occasion injustice – Appellant
       is directed to pay cost which is quantified as Rs.10,00,000/-.
       [Paras 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17]

       Maxim – Actus curiae neminem gravabit:
       Held: The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means
       that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, is a principle firmly
       embedded in jurisprudence – It is founded on the equitable notion
       that no party should suffer owing to an error, delay, or inadvertence
       attributable to the Court itself – The Court, acting as in appendage
       of justice, cannot permit its own procedure or inadvertent lapse
       to occasion injustice – Accordingly, where a party has been
       disadvantaged by reason of an act of the Court, it is incumbent
       upon the Court to undo such prejudice and restore the party to
       the position he would have occupied but for such act. [Para 15]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Jang Singh v. Brij Lal [1964] 2 SCR 145 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC
       219 – relied on.
       Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and Another v. Pralhad Bhairoba
       Suryavanshi (dead) by LRS. and Others [2002] 1 SCR 393 :
       (2002) 3 SCC 676 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

                                List of Keywords
       Decree; Execution of decree; Obstruction in execution of decree;
       Actus curiae neminem gravabit.

                               Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
       No. 26593 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2025 of the High Court
       of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 5810 of 2025
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        397

                 Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.


                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Pavani
     Verma, Mrs. Anumita Verma, Akhilesh Yadav.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Aditya Dassaur, Ms. Priyanjali Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Vikram Nath, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer. After this
     Court on 1st April, 2025 set aside the decree but moulded equitable
     relief by directing payment of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores),
     a sum 800 (eight hundred) times the ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
     Five Thousand only) paid as earnest money in 1989, the appellant
     refused the tender, obstructed execution, and has returned to this
     Court in an effort to delay the inevitable. This appeal is a cautionary
     tale about how the pursuit of a windfall can turn the process of law
     against those who seek to exploit it, in order to retain possession
     while spurning an extraordinary monetary award. The appellant
     has shot himself in the foot and in the same breath dug his own
     grave. Equity will not allow unjust enrichment. The process of
     execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite
     windfalls. A party that has received such compensation must yield
     possession.
3.   This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order
     dated 11.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
     Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 5810 of 2025, titled ‘Prem Aggarwal
     through her GPA Holder vs. Mohan Singh and others’, whereby the
     said revision assailing the correctness of the order dated 07.08.2025
     as well as order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior
     Division), Chandigarh (for short, “Executing Court”) directing for issue
     of warrant of possession and rejecting the objections/application of
     the appellant, was dismissed.
398                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


4.     The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as follows.
       Appellant hereinafter is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents
       as defendants for the initial part of the order.
       i)     An agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 was executed by the
              defendants whereby they agreed to sell the suit property for
              a total sale consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/- in favour of the
              plaintiff. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell, an
              advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid as earnest money.
              The suit property consisted of two floors. On the first floor there
              were two tenants. The ground floor was vacant. Its possession
              was given to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement. In February
              1990, the plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 44 of 1990 for a simple
              relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from
              alienating or dispossessing them from the suit property. The
              plaintiff apprehended that the defendants intended to resell the
              suit property as an advertisement had been issued by them on
              07.01.1990 in daily newspaper ‘The Tribune’. The said suit for
              permanent injunction was dismissed as withdrawn by the Trial
              Court on 15.06.1990 and attained finality.
       ii)    The plaintiff thereafter instituted another suit bearing Civil Suit
              No. 55 of 1990 in June 1990 seeking a decree of specific
              performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989. The
              said suit was decreed by the Trial Court, vide judgment and
              order dated 11.12.2009. Against the said order, the first appeal
              preferred by the defendants was dismissed on 19.09.2013. The
              second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed, vide
              judgment and order dated 13.05.2022. A review petition by the
              defendants also received the same fate and was dismissed
              on 19.08.2022. High Court although dealt with the issue of
              Order II rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 but fell in error
              as it ignored the fact that the suit for injunction and the suit for
              specific performance were based on the same cause of action,
              i.e., the advertisement for sale published on 07.01.1990 in daily
              newspaper ‘The Tribune’. High Court proceeded on the premise
              that at the time of filing suit for injunction only dispossession
              was threatened and there was no intention to not execute the
              sale deed pursuant to the agreement to sell.


1    For short, “CPC”
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        399

                  Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.


     iii)   The defendants assailed the aforesaid judgments before this
            Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 4647-4648 of 2025, titled
            ‘Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. Prem Aggarwal’.
     iv)    This Court, vide judgment and order dated 01.04.2025, allowed
            the appeals and after setting aside the impugned orders therein
            dismissed the suit, primarily on the finding that the suit was
            barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. However, in the
            facts and circumstances of the case, this Court awarded an
            amount of Rupees Two Crores to be paid by the defendants
            to the plaintiff within three months in lieu of the earnest money
            of Rs.25,000/- that was paid in the year 1989.
5.   It appears that the defendants tried to make the payment to the
     plaintiff but they declined to accept the same and as such execution
     proceedings were initiated in which the defendants deposited the
     amount of Rupees Two Crores by way of Fixed Deposits in the name
     of the plaintiff. The Executing Court directed the plaintiffs to accept
     the amount and hand over the possession but when it did not happen,
     the defendants applied for issuance of warrants of possession.
6.   The Executing Court in its order dated 07.08.2025 noted that the
     amount of Rupees Two Crores had been furnished by way of Fixed
     Deposit in the name of the plaintiff. But since the plaintiff had not
     received them, the Executing Court directed that the original Fixed
     Deposit be returned, and fresh Fixed Deposit be furnished in the
     name of the Court. It further directed for issuance of warrant of
     possession on 07.08.2025 and fixed 12.08.2025 as the next date.
     The warrants were issued on 08.08.2025. When the matter was next
     taken up on 12.08.2025, the Court was apprised by the Bailiff that
     the police assistance was required as there was resistance at the
     time of the execution of warrants of possession.
7.   Further on 12.08.2025, the plaintiff filed objections/application to
     recall the warrant of possession to which the defendants sought
     time to file response on the same day. The matter was directed to
     be taken up post lunch. Post lunch after hearing the counsel for the
     parties, the Executing Court rejected the application/objections of the
     plaintiff and further directed for police assistance to be rendered by
     the concerned SHO. The Executing Court further granted 4 days’ time
     to the plaintiff to receive the amount, and the warrant of possession
     were to be executed only after 4 days in case the plaintiff would not
     receive the amount and hand over possession. Aggrieved by the
400                                                      [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       aforesaid two orders i.e., 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, the plaintiff
       preferred Civil Revision before the High Court which has since been
       dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2025.
8.     We have heard Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel
       for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Aditya Dassaur, learned counsel
       appearing for the defendants-respondents appearing on caveat.
       Hereinafter the plaintiff would be referred to as the appellant and
       the defendants as the respondents.
9.     We have no hesitation in recording at the outset that the appellant
       has been unnecessarily delaying and causing obstruction in the
       execution of the decree. We also record that there is no default on
       the part of the defendants in complying with the direction of this
       Court to pay the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the appellant.
       The amount was to be paid within three months, which was duly
       tendered by way of Fixed Deposits along with the application for
       execution filed on 26.06.2025 within period of 3 months granted by
       this Court, vide judgment dated 01.04.2025.
10. Once this Court found that the suit for specific performance was
    liable to be dismissed it was at the discretion of this Court whether
    or not to direct for refund of the earnest money and if yes then at
    what rate of interest it should be awarded. Normally it would be a
    reasonable rate of interest. If it was increased to 18%, 24% or 36%
    still the amount of interest would be abysmally low as compared
    to what this Court awarded. Table below will show the amount of
    interest component at different rates of interest:-

               1.   25000 x 9 x 36   = 81,000/-
                         100

               2. 25000 x 18 x 36 = 1,62,000/-
                         100

               3. 25000 x 24 x 36 = 2,16,000/-
                         100

               4. 25000 x 36 x 36 = 3,24,000/-
                         100
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        401

                 Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.


     What has been awarded by the judgment and order dated 01.04.2025
     is a whopping amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rs. Two Crores only) as
     against the earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand
     only). Merely because the fact of possession was not pointed out
     at the time of hearing, the appellant as an unscrupulous litigant
     has been resisting the delivery of possession and has dragged the
     respondents up to this Court.
           This Court had awarded the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rs.
           Two Crores only) to the appellant to ensure that the suit property
           of the respondents continues with them and at the same time
           balance the equities between the parties. The appellant who
           had won from three Courts and a period of 36 years had
           passed since the time of execution of the agreement is suitably
           compensated. The appellant was neither a tenant nor a licencee
           or lessee on the ground floor of the suit property. He had been
           inducted only because of the agreement to sell. Once it has
           been held that no relief can be granted for specific performance
           and an extraordinary amount has been awarded to compensate
           the meagre amount of advance is only to adjust the equities.
           Appellant cannot have any right to resist possession and should
           not have obstructed or resisted the delivery of possession.
11. The appellant has no locus or justification to hold on to the possession
    for the additional following reasons:
     i)    His suit for permanent injunction based upon his possession
           pursuant to the agreement to sell had been dismissed on 15th
           June, 1990 and had attained finality.
     ii)   Apparently, it was not pointed out at the time of the hearing
           of the Civil Appeal Nos. 4647-4648 of 2025 that the appellant
           was continuing in possession otherwise at that very stage this
           aspect would have been clarified and specific direction would
           have been issued that the amount of Rupees Two Crores was
           being paid by the respondents to the appellant not only in lieu
           of earnest money but also that the appellant would be required
           to hand over possession to the respondents.
12. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel has sought to argue
    that the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Section 53-A of
    the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and being in possession of the
402                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       suit property, she was entitled to continue till there was a decree of
       eviction. The respondents having failed to claim possession before
       this Court, therefore, now the only recourse open to them is to file a
       suit for possession. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this
       Court in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and another
       vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRS. And others2.
13. The submission advanced by Mr. Bhatnagar does not merit
    consideration as the very claim of possession was based on the
    agreement to sell and the suit for specific performance having been
    dismissed by this Court with an exorbitant amount of compensation
    being awarded to suitably compensate him, he cannot enjoy the
    possession and at the same time receive the amount of Rupees
    Two Crores as against an advance amount of Rupees Twenty Five
    Thousand Only. The appellant had lost in the suit for permanent
    injunction and now having lost in the suit for specific performance
    of contract cannot claim to hold on to the possession or insist that
    the defendants should file a separate suit for possession. The
    compensation of Rupees Two Crores was awarded only to bring an
    end to the litigation and put a quietus.
14. The facts in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi (supra)
    were quite different and distinct and do not in any way help the
    plaintiffs. The plaintiff wants to take undue advantage of an omission
    in the judgment dated 01.04.2025, wherein this Court did not clarify
    that possession would be handed over to the respondent upon receipt
    of the amount awarded.
15. The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means that the act
    of the Court shall prejudice no one, is a principle firmly embedded in
    our jurisprudence. It is founded on the equitable notion that no party
    should suffer owing to an error, delay, or inadvertence attributable
    to the Court itself. The Court, acting as in appendage of justice,
    cannot permit its own procedure or inadvertent lapse to occasion
    injustice. Accordingly, where a party has been disadvantaged by
    reason of an act of the Court, it is incumbent upon the Court to
    undo such prejudice and restore the party to the position he would
    have occupied but for such act. This Court long back in the decision



2   (2002) 3 SCC 676
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                      403

                    Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.


     of three-Judges in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal3, quoted the maxim with
     approval and held that: -
            “6. . . . It is no doubt true that a litigant must be
            vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to
            Court and asks for the assistance of the Court so
            that his obligations under a decree might be fulfilled
            by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it
            does not leave the litigant to his own devices, to
            ensure that the correct information is furnished. If the
            Court in supplying the information makes a mistake
            the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not
            altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. If
            the litigant acts on the faith of that information the
            Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake
            which it itself caused. There is no higher principle for
            the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of
            Courts should harm a litigant, and it is the bounden
            duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by
            a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the
            position he would have occupied but for that mistake.
            This is aptly summed up in the maxim:
            “Actus curiae neminem gravabit”.”
                                              (emphasis supplied)

     The maxim thus operates as a constant reminder that the Court’s
     authority must be exercised not to the disadvantage of litigants,
     but in furtherance of justice. After all, to err is human, and when an
     inadvertent omission is brought to the Court’s attention, it becomes
     the Court’s solemn duty to ensure that no party suffers on account
     of such mistake. In such circumstances, the Court is obliged to
     restore the party to the very position he would have occupied had
     the error not occurred.
16. We are thus satisfied that the Executing Court and the High Court
    have taken a correct view in directing for issuance of warrants of
    possession with police assistance. The appeal, therefore, deserves
    dismissal.


3   1963 SCC OnLine SC 219
404                                                     [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


17. For all the reasons recorded above, we dismiss the appeal with
    cost which is quantified as Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only)
    to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within 4 weeks failing
    which it will carry an interest component of 12% per annum. Proof of
    payment of costs be filed within six weeks. If no such proof is filed,
    the Registry shall list this matter before this Court for appropriate
    orders.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan