There is a rule in Roman law, that the execution of the law does no injury.
This principle of Roman law provides that the Execution of the law itself cannot be called as an injury. It one who has been punished cannot claim damages for the loss suffered due to the the punishment, as the punishment was the execution of the law and it is equivalent to no injury. Thus, he/she cannot ask for the damages in such case. The harm/damages suffered by the punished party cannot be considered as injury, as it is the execution of Law.
‘A’ was asked by ‘CDF District Court’ to pay compensation of Rs. 15000 to ‘B’ committing the tort of negligence which led to the destruction of B’s property. Execution of the order of the court cannot be termed an injury, as the execution of the law does no injury.
Indian Law Position:
In Indian law also the maxim ‘Executio Juris Nnon Habet Injuriam’ is found to be true.
Shanmugam v. Arthanari
In the above mentioned case the honorable High Court of Madras used the principle laid down in the maxim – ‘Executio Juris Non Habet Injuriam’. 
Suresh Mohan v. S. Lilly & Another
In the above mentioned case also the principle laid down in the maxim ‘Execution Juris Non Habet Injuriam’ was used. 
Aswinikumar v. K. Maheswari
In the above-mentioned case following maxims were applied by the honorable High Court of Madras –
a) Executio juris non habet injuriam – The execution of law does no injury
b) Lex nil facit frustra – The law does nothing in vain.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Shanmugam v. Arthanari, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3408.
 G. Suresh Mohan v. S. Lilly & Another, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 4009.
 Ashwinikumar v. K. Maheswari, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3412.