Allahabad High Court
Basdev (Since Deceased) And 4 Others vs Premshankar And 2 Others on 12 March, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36426
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1554 of 2025
Petitioner :- Basdev (Since Deceased) And 4 Others
Respondent :- Premshankar And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Yadav,Jagadamba Gupta
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. This is plaintiffs' petition. The Original Suit No. 338 of 2009 filed by plaintiffs was decreed on 02.05.2013, against which no appeal was preferred, as has been stated in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today. An Execution Case No. 6 of 2014 has been filed, which is pending consideration. The sole prayer made in writ petition for expeditious disposal of the same.
2. Recently, on 06.03.2025, the Apex Court in Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, Civil Appeal No. 3640-3642 of 2025 issued necessary directions for the executing court throughout the country for expediting the execution proceedings, relying upon the earlier decisions. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereasunder:-
?72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions.
73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S. Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:
?42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:
42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 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.
***
42.5. 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.
***
42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 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 determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.
42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.
***
42.12. 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.
***
(Emphasis supplied)
74. The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.?
3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, or calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to the private respondent, the matter is being disposed of, at the admission stage, with a direction upon the executing court to decide the Execution (Izra) Case No. 6 of 2014, after hearing all the concerned parties, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
4. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits.
Order Date :- 12.3.2025
Shekhar
