Supreme Court of India

Sultana Begum v Prem Chand Jain

(1996) Supp 9 SCR 70719971 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
In execution proceedings the judgment-debtor relied on an adjustment of the decree outside court that had not been certified under O.XXI R.2 CPC.
Issue
Whether S.47 CPC and O.XXI R.2 CPC conflict, and whether the uncertified adjustment could be recognised.
Held
The provisions are to be read harmoniously: S.47 gives the executing court jurisdiction over questions of execution and satisfaction, while O.XXI R.2 lays down how out-of-court adjustments are recorded. The special provision prevails over the general, so an uncertified adjustment could not be recognised. The Court restated the rules of harmonious construction.
Principle
Provisions of the same statute are read to give effect to both; a conflict is found only when no reconciling reading is possible.
Cite this

Facts

  • In execution proceedings the judgment-debtor relied on an adjustment of the decree outside court that had not been certified under O.XXI R.2 CPC.

Issue

  1. Whether S.47 CPC and O.XXI R.2 CPC conflict, and whether the uncertified adjustment could be recognised.

Held

  • The provisions are to be read harmoniously: S.47 gives the executing court jurisdiction over questions of execution and satisfaction, while O.XXI R.2 lays down how out-of-court adjustments are recorded. The special provision prevails over the general, so an uncertified adjustment could not be recognised. The Court restated the rules of harmonious construction.

Cite this

Citation

Sultana Begum v Prem Chand Jain (1996) Supp 9 SCR 707

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1530418/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.