Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Chandra Shukla vs Dr. Ajay Kishore on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 433 of 2021
1.Ramesh Chandra Shukla
2.Akhilesh Chandra Shukla .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.Dr. Ajay Kishore
2.Dr. Sanjay Kishore Ravi
3.Mrityunjay Kishore
4.Vikram Jai Kishore
5.Sujata Nirupam .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) :
......
05/ 11.10.2022. The instant C.M.P. has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of an appropriate order(s)/ direction(s) upon the court of learned
Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi for expeditious disposal of Execution Case No.251 of 2016
in the light of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S.
Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, reported in 2021 (6) SCC 418.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that father of the
petitioners/ plaintiff filed Title Suit being T.S. No.108 of 2006 which was decreed
on 06.01.2016. It is further submitted that no appeal was preferred against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned court below and the Execution Case
No.251 of 2016 was filed and the same was admitted vide order dated 28.03.2017.
It is submitted that in the said execution case, notices were issued, but the judgment-
debtor did not choose to appear and consequently substituted service of notice was
effected and the same was validly served vide order dated 25.05.2018.
It is further submitted that despite this, the execution proceeding is still
pending and during pendency of the execution case, the original plaintiff died on
27.03.2021.
It is a travesty of justice that even after five years of filing the execution case
the decree holder has not received the fruits of the decree. The suit was filed more
than 15 years back and the judgement has attained its finality. He says solemn duty
of the executing court to dispose of the execution case without any inordinate delay.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed concern of the tedious at the stage of
execution of a number of cases. It has been held in from Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418
"23. This Court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually
being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of
decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Council in General Manager of the Raj
Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing [General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput
Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16 : (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605] which observed that the actual difficulties
of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This Court made a similar observation in Shub
Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna [Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009) 9 SCC 689 : (2009)
3 SCC (Civ) 820] , wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and Parliament should bestow
their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful execution. The Court
opined that the Law Commission or Parliament must give effect to appropriate recommendations to
ensure such amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the adjudication of a suit, so
as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to the
stage of securing relief after execution proceedings. The execution proceedings which are supposed to
be a handmaid of justice and subserve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being
easily misused to obstruct justice".
The instant C.M.P. stands disposed of.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance the learned court below is directed to expedite the
execution proceeding and dispose of the execution case within six months from the date of receipt of
this order.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
