The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court refused to condone the delay of approximately 2 years and 5 months in reviving the execution case while holding that if the execution case is kept pending beyond six months, the Executing Court has to record reasons as to why the decree has not been executed by that time.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner/Plaintiff got a decree in their favor and the Defendant/Respondent was directed to execute a registered deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs within 45 days from the date of the appellate decree failing which it would be executed through the Court and was also directed the Defendant Defendant to return the remaining amount of Rs.9,81,250/- with 10% interest. The execution suit was disposed of and the Petitioner filed the review petition after a delay of 1502 days under Section 114 read with Order 47 and Section 151 of the CPC along with a condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the court rejected the application. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that no steps were taken by the decree-holder regarding the execution of the cash amount of money. Furthermore, it was also submitted by the counsel representing the decree holder that there would be no grievance as the execution case is closed as the sale deed has already been executed. It appeared to the Court that the decree-holders were satisfied with the execution of the sale deed and were not interested in any further execution of the decree involved.
It was furthermore observed that the Executing Court has to record the reasons why the decree has not been carried out by the end of the six-month period if the execution case is kept pending by that point. The court relied upon the judgment titled Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the revival of an execution case, after such a length of time and that too at the behest of parties who apparently were not interested in full execution of the decree, would also amount to condoning the lapses on the part of the petitioners.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: Sri Raiharan Datta & others V. Sri Parimal Ch. Baidya & others
Case No.: CRP No.22 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
