Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Nagar vs Special P.C. Act, Court No-3, Lko. ... on 19 December, 2022
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4758 of 2022
Petitioner :- Gaurav Nagar
Respondent :- Special P.C. Act, Court No-3, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Singh
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard.
No notice need to be issued to the private respondents taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.
The instant petition has been filed praying for direction to the learned Court below to decide execution of judgement and decree dated 09.10.2018 passed in Small Cause Case No. 74 of 2013 in re: Gaurav Nagar vs Dr. Sudhanshu Rastogi and others pending in the Court of Special Judge, P.C. Act, Lucknow, bearing Execution Case No. 29 of 2019.
The contention is that the aforesaid case has been filed for the purpose of execution of judgement and decree dated 09.10.2018 passed in Small Cause Case No. 74 of 2013 in re: Gaurav Nagar vs Dr. Sudhanshu Rastogi and others.
The contention is that despite the Execution Case No. 29 of 2019 having been filed praying for execution of the judgement and decree dated 09.10.2018 yet the said case is still pending since the year 2019 and a period of three years have lapsed, a direction be issued to the Court concerned to expedite the said case.
Reliance has been placed on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoj Raj Garg Vs. Goyal Education and Welfare Society and Ors reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976 argue that the Apex Court while considering its earlier judgment passed in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 has directed that all Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the mentioned direction i.e the executing Court 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. It is argued that considering the said judgment, this Court may direct the Court concerned to decide the aforesaid case within six months.
For the sake of convenience, the order of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoj Raj Garg (supra) is reproduced below:-
"The complaint of the petitioner is that the Execution Court is not abiding by the directions issued by this Court in the decision in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418. In the said decision, this Court held as follows:-
42. All Courts dealing with suits and Signature Not Verified execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions :-
2. The Executing Court 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.
Subject to these observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of."
Considering the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of directing the learned Court below to adhere to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoj Raj Garg (supra) while deciding the case.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022
J.K. Dinkar
