Execution Petitions Must Be Disposed Of Within Six Months ; Courts Must Record Reasons If Unable To : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the execution petitions must be disposed within six months from the date of filing.The Execution Court is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said.In this case, the decree holder approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order of the executing court that dismissed his application for pre-ponement/early hearing of his execution petition which was filed on 20.03.2019. As the High Court refused to interfere in the matter, he approached the Apex Court in appeal essentially contending that the Execution Court is not abiding by the directions issued in the decision in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418.In Rahul S. Shah, a three judges bench of the Apex Court had issued a direction that Executing Courts must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. "This means that it becomes the duty of the Execution Court to dispose of the execution proceedings at the earliest and since this Court has directed that the Execution Court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which can be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay, this direction is meant to be observed. This would mean that every effort should be made to dispose of the execution petition within the said time limit and the Execution Court should have reasons for not being able to dispose of the execution petition. The Execution Court is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter. We need only reiterate what this court has already ordered.", the Apex Court bench observed while disposing the Special Leave Petition.Rahul S. Shah JudgmentIn Rahul S. Shah, the Supreme Court was considering an appeal arising out of an execution proceedings which is pending for over 14 years. While dismissing the appeal, the court observed that these appeals portray the troubles of the decree holder in not being able to enjoy the fruits of litigation on account of inordinate delay caused during the process of execution of decree. The court said that there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a re-trial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. The bench directed the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year. Till then the following directions are to be followed:In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties.In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third-party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and...

Execution Petitions Must Be Disposed Of Within Six Months ; Courts Must Record Reasons If Unable To : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags