The Delhi High Court has held that it retains jurisdiction to execute a decree for an amount below ₹2 crore if the original commercial suit was instituted for a claim exceeding the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction threshold. Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected a challenge to the maintainability of an execution petition seeking enforcement of a decree worth ₹1.19 crore, observing that a subsequent reduction in the decretal amount does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to execute the decree.
The Court was hearing an execution petition filed by Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. against Co-Incept Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and others for enforcement of a decree dated July 19, 2018. The original commercial suit had sought recovery of approximately ₹2.53 crore arising from a franchise agreement. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement, pursuant to which the suit was decreed for ₹1,19,43,000.
One of the judgment debtors challenged the maintainability of the execution petition, contending that the amount sought to be recovered was below the ₹2 crore threshold prescribed for the Commercial Division of the High Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Rejecting the objection, the Court relied on Sections 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which define the court competent to execute a decree and provide that a decree may be executed either by the court that passed it or by a court to which it is transferred for execution.
The Court observed that a change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court does not, by itself, take away its authority to execute a decree passed by it. It further clarified that Sections 37 and 38 CPC apply to decrees passed in commercial suits, in view of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
Holding that the original suit had been instituted for an amount exceeding ₹2 crore and that the decree was passed by the High Court, Justice Prasad rejected the challenge to the execution petition’s maintainability.
The matter was directed to be listed before the Roster Bench on October 14, 2026.
