Jharkhand High Court

M/S. R.K. Construction Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 25 August, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                             2025:JHHC:25133-DB




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       C.M.P. No.397 of 2025
                                 -----

M/s. R.K. Construction Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956/2013, having its registered office at Reyaz Manzil, R.K. Nagar, F.C.I. Road, Phulwari Sharif, P.O. and P.S. Phulwari Sharif, Town and District Patna, Bihar through its director, Mr. Siraj Ahmed, aged about 40 years, son of Late Riyaz Ahmed Khan, resident of Riyaz Nagar, F.C.I. Road, Phulwari Sharif, P.O. and P.S. Phulwari Sharif, Town and District Patna.

.......... Petitioner.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Engineer, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Water Resources Department, Icha-Galudih Complex, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District Seraikela Kharsawan.

2. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Water Resources Department, Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project, Galudih, P.O. and P.S. Galudih, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

.......... Opp. Parties.

-----

        CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                 -----
        For the Petitioner :        Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
                                    Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate
        For the Respondents:        A.C. to G.P.-IV
                                 -----
        Order No.08                                   Date: 25.08.2025

1.      Heard.

2. A very innocuous prayer has been made in this petition for

expeditious decision on the execution petition filed by the

petitioner. Obviously, there can be no objection to such a prayer,

being allowed more particularly, in the light of the decision

rendered in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar

Gandhi and Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided guidelines and directions for

conduct of execution proceedings. Paragraph nos. 42 to 42.14 of

the said judgment read as under:

2025:JHHC:25133-DB

"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.

42.2. 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.

42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or

production of documents under Order 11 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.

42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 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.

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.

2025:JHHC:25133-DB

42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to

Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree

for payment of money on oral application.

42.7. 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.

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.

2025:JHHC:25133-DB

42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term "... in name of the

judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on

his behalf" should be read liberally to incorporate any other

person from whom he may have the ability to derive share,

profit or property.

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.

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact

that it is not possible to execute the decree without police

assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide

police assistance to such officials who are working towards

execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against

the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to

the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with

stringently in accordance with law.

42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and

ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to

the court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying

out attachment and sale and any other official duties for

executing orders issued by the executing courts."

3. In the case of M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers

Private Limited vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.

and Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 534, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that Arbitration Award must be executed without

delay, otherwise purpose and object of the 1996 Act (Arbitration

2025:JHHC:25133-DB

and Conciliation Act) as well as Commercial Courts Act, 2015 will

be frustrated.

4. In the case of Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. and Others

vs. V. Rajamani and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online

SC 507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in fact, directed as

follows :

"75. In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts

across the country to call for the necessary information from

their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the

execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the

High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to

issue an administrative order or circular, directing their

respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution

petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and

disposed of within a period of six months without fail

otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be

answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.

Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and

disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the

same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with

individual reports.