An execution is the end and the fruit of the law.
The expression “execution” here means implementation or giving an effect to the order or judgment or decree passed by the court. The implementation of the order or judgment or decree helps the plaintiff to derive the fruits of the decree. The execution can be considered to have taken place when the plaintiff is able to reap the benefits of the decree.
Indian Law Position:
Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the act of execution of the decrees passed by the Courts. Ultimately, after the judgment attains finality or where there is no stay in the execution by any Appellate or Revisional Court, it is the Court of original jurisdiction which performs this sacred act of implementation of the execution.
If ‘A’ files a case against ‘B’, and ‘A’ is able to prove that he had to suffer the damages due to the act of B, in that case the court will order ‘B’ to compensate ‘A’. Now in this case the execution would be, payment of compensation amount by ‘B’ to ‘A’, then only ‘A’ will be able to reap the fruits of the decree.
a. Ghanshyam Das vs. Anant Kumar Sinha
However directly the maxim – ‘Executio est finis et fructus legis’ was not used in this case, but the honorable court discussed about execution of the decree. It was provided by the honorable court that – “so far as the question of executability of a decree is concerned, the Civil Procedure Code contains elaborate and exhaustive provisions for dealing with it in all aspects. The numerous rules of Order 21 of the code take care of different situations providing effective remedies not only to judgment-debtors and decree-holders but also to claimant objectors, as the case may be. In an exceptional case, where provisions are rendered incapable of giving relief to an aggrieved party inadequate measures and appropriate time, the answer is a regular suit in the civil court.”
b. Diravidamani vs. Chitradevi & Others
In the above mentioned case the legal maxim of ‘Executio est finis et fructus legis’ was taken into consideration.
c. Rosali V vs. Taico Bank
In the above mentioned case also Order 21 was discussed by the honorable Supreme Court of India.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Ghanshyam Das v. Anant Kumar Sinha, 1991 AIR 2251.
 Diravidamani v. Chitradevi & Others, Case No. M.P (MD) No.1 of 2008,
 16 Rosali V v. Taico Bank, Civil Appeal No. 6129 of 2000.