Why a DECREE in civil cases?

Normally in every civil cases, there is a Judgment which is delivered by the Judge himself at the end of the case. Subsequently, the Court office staff (not a legally technical person) drafted a 'decree' in consonance with that of the judgment.

What is the difference between a judgment and a decree?

Very simple; Judgment is delivered by the Judge; and the decree is prepared by a non-judicial staff of that Court.

Is decree a necessary one in every case?

I don't think so. It was introduced long back during the British Judicial administration in British India. Even after the independence of India, our Judicial system also follow and adopt the same without any valid or convincing reason. I think, we just follow it as of a routine.

Actually, the Judge, after hearing a case in full length, i.e. after examination of all the documents produced before him, after examination of all the witnesses produced before him, after hearing the lengthy arguments of the lawyers concerned, at last, the Judge delivered the judgment that the case is allowed or dismissed. The Judge, in his judgment, gives sufficient legal reasons for delivering such judgment. Therefore, the judgment is nothing but contained only the reasons for his conclusions. No doubt, he discussed each and every minute details about the case facts, evidences, proposition of law, etc. In  spite of all these things, the party to that case (who won) cannot use this judgment for claiming his right of execution of that judgment. The party to that case has to obtain one more thing which is called "a decree" for due execution of this judgment.

 For a better understanding, I'll give one example. Suppose, I lent money to one Mr. X, but he failed to repay it. Hence I have forced to file a case against Mr.X for recovery of that money. The Court after hearing my case and the X's explanation, the Judge would deliver a judgment that I really lent that money to Mr.X and therefore I am entitled to recover it from him with interest and cost of that case. Without that Judgment I can't recover it from him, by mere producing the said judgment to that Court or a parallel Court for such recovery. I have to apply for a "Decree" copy, which is to be prepared by the Court office . That decree copy contains the following particulars, viz. apart from the case number, parties names and address, the other particulars such as whether such claim is allowed or not, what is the principal money, what is the interest, and what is the cost of the suit.

Normally, a judgment is a lengthy one, containing number of papers depends upon the reasons and conclusions which are given in that judgment. But  a decree is just contained two or three papers, which contained the final result and the calculations of amount or Court's executive order.

So, to my knowledge, a decree is nothing but a calculation slip (in money suits), or a writ of execution (in property cases).

Now my arduous question is: why such a decree is necessary to the litigant? When there is a detailed judgment  which is very much available in number of papers which is delivered by the Judge himself - (but 'without calculation slip or without writ of execution')  - is it not a waste of litigant's time for the preparation of a 'decree' from the very same judgment.

Therefore to my opinion the 'decree' is an unnecessary one and it is an old, cumbersome method, which really a waste of Court's time and litigant's time.

Except in civil cases, all the other cases, there is no such method of decree, but only a judgment. Why not the Courts follow the same to the civil cases also.

.