Raghuveer Singh vs Ram Chander
2023 Latest Caselaw 3331 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051176




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

116                                           CR No.2064 of 2023
                                              Date of Decision: 10.04.2023


Raghuveer Singh                                             ...Petitioner

                                 Versus

Ram Chander                                                 ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI


Present:-    Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             ***

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present revision petition filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is for directions to the executing Court to

adjudicate upon the applications filed for making the sale absolute, issuance

of sale certificate and for issue of warrants of possession, in a time bound

manner.

It is pleaded that the petitioner had filed suit for possession by

way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.10.2016, with

consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in

favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018,

whereby the defendant-respondent was directed to execute and register the

sale deed in favour of the petitioner and consequent relief of permanent

injunction was also granted, restraining the defendant from alienating the

suit property.

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051176

CR No.2064 of 2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:051176

It is submitted that no appeal was filed against the judgment and

decree dated 04.10.2018 but execution proceedings were taken out in that

regard. On 28.03.2022, an application under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC for

making the sale absolute along with another application under Order 21 Rule

94 CPC for issuance of the sale certificate and third application under Order

21 Rule 95 CPC for issuance of warrants of possession had been filed.

Notice of the said applications was issued to the judgment-debtor, who is

represented through counsel before the executing Court. It is submitted that

the said applications are pending adjudication and are being adjourned date

after date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Rahul S.

Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, AIR 2021 SC 2161, wherein the Apex

Court has issued a slew of directions, holding that execution proceedings

should be concluded within six months.

It is contended that in the present case, the execution

proceedings were instituted on 21.11.2018 and vide order dated 30.11.2021

local commissioner was appointed to get the sale deed executed in favour of

the decree-holder, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar,

Abohar. Till date, no objections have been filed in the execution

proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the

order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C)

No.19654/2022, which reads as under:-

"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 and

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051176

CR No.2064 of 2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:051176

others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418. In the said decision, this Court held as follows:-

"42. All Courts dealing with suits and 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."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able

assistance perused the paper-book.

It is not disputed that the suit for possession by way of specific

performance of agreement to sell dated 21.10.2016 was decreed vide

judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018. In execution proceedings, the sale

deed has also since been registered through Court on 14.12.2021. The

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051176

CR No.2064 of 2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:051176

interlocutory orders passed in the execution proceedings have been

collectively appended as Annexure P-5 with the present petition, which

show that no objections or any stay order from any superior Court has been

received in the said proceedings.

Keeping in view the law settled by the Apex Court and totality

of the facts and circumstances of this case, the instant revision petition is

disposed of with a direction to the executing Court to conclude the

proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from

today.

                                                     (VIKAS SURI)
                                                       JUDGE
April 10, 2023
vcgarg

            Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes
            Whether reportable:                      No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051176

4 of 4