Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday addressed a concerning trend of delay in drawing up the final decrees under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) which deals with decrees in suits for partition or separate possession of share therein.

Noting that since there is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings, a division bench has observed that the litigants tend to take their own sweet time for initiating final decree proceedings.

"...this practice is to be discouraged as there is no point in declaring the rights of the parties in one proceeding and requiring initiation of separate proceedings for quantification and ascertainment of the relief. This will only delay the realization of the fruits of the decree....", a bench of Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath said.

Court also went on to draw a distinction between preliminary and final decree, stating that a preliminary decree merely declares the rights and shares of the parties and leaves room for some further inquiry to be held and conducted pursuant to the directions made in the preliminary decree and after the inquiry having been conducted and rights of the parties being finally determined, a final decree incorporating such determination needs to be drawn up.

Court thus held that once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu. 

“After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC.  The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die…There is also no need to file a separate final decree proceedings. In the same suit, the court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. Needless to state that the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn….”, the bench held.

The Trial Courts have been directed to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo moto and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings.

Also, the Supreme Court Registry has been asked to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts who in turn are directed to circulate the said directions to the concerned Trial Courts in their respective States.

Case Title: KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN & ANR. vs. KATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & ORS.