Telangana High Court
Aruna Padma vs Singam Mangamma Died on 26 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 725 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking for issuance of direction to the Court
below for expeditious disposal of E.P. No.379 of 2023 pending on
the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal -
Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.
2. Heard Sri. Vadeendra Joshi learned Counsel for petitioner and
perused the record.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner herein along with
the Respondent Nos.17 & 18 had filed the underlying Execution
Petition seeking delivery of possession of the suit scheduled
property in O.S. No.398 of 2009.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that after all the
concerned parties had submitted their written arguments on
02.11.2023, the legal heirs of Judgment Debtor No.5 had filed a
Claim petition seeking to set-aside the judgment and decree passed
in O.S. No.398 of 2009 to the extent of their claim; that thereafter,
the proceedings before the executing court are being delayed on the
pretext of pending of the said claim petition filed by the legal heirs
of J.Dr No.5.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the
Executing Court ought to have directed the Counsels on record to
cooperate in disposing of the execution petition, as it is well settled
that an execution petition ought to be decided within six months.
Thus, it is contended that if this Court were to direct the executing
Court to decide the matter on a day to day basis, the petitioner
herein who is a seventy year of lady, would be able to realize the
fruits of the decree.
6. I have taken note of respective contentions.
7. At the outset this Court is conscious of the fact that the
troubles of a litigant in India begin after obtaining a decree in their
favor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again expressed
concern over the misuse of procedure by the judgment debtors to
thwart the execution of a decree by raising all possible objections.
The Apex Court in Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors 1, had
observed that a success in a suit means nothing to a litigant unless
he/she experiences the relief granted. Therefore, the Apex Court
held that the emphasis in civil litigation should not only be on
disposal of suits but also on the execution of such decrees. The
relevant observations are as under:
"16. Once again in the case of Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan
Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Ors. MANU/SC/1607/2009 :
(2009) 9 SCC 689 at para 27 this Court observed as under:
In the present system, when preliminary decree for partition is passed,
there is no guarantee that the Plaintiff will see the fruits of the decree.
The proverbial observation by the Privy Council is that the difficulties of
a litigant begin when he obtains a decree. It is necessary to remember
that success in a suit means nothing to a party unless he gets the
relief. Therefore, to be really meaningful and efficient, the scheme of
the Code should enable a party not only to get a decree quickly, but
also to get the relief quickly. This requires a conceptual change
regarding civil litigation, so that the emphasis is not only on disposal of
suits, but also on securing relief to the litigant.
17. As stated by us hereinabove, the position has not been improved till
today. We strongly feel that there should not be unreasonable delay
in execution of a decree because if the decree holder is unable to
enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the
entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain."
(emphasis supplied)
(2013)9SCC491
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi and Ors 2, while noting that the mischief created by
the judgment debtors and third parties to frustrate the decree passed
has only increased in the recent past, has passed the following
mandatory guidelines to be followed while adjudication of both the
suit and the execution proceedings:
"41. Having regard to the above background, wherein there is urgent
need to reduce delays in the execution proceedings we deem it
appropriate to issue few directions to do complete justice. These
directions are in exercise of our jurisdiction Under Article 142 read with
Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India in larger public
interest to subserve the process of justice so as to bring to an end the
unnecessary ordeal of litigation faced by parties awaiting fruits of decree
and in larger perspective affecting the faith of the litigants in the process
of law.
42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall
mandatorily follow the below-mentioned directions:
1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must
examine the parties to the suit Under Order X in relation to third
2. party interest and further exercise the power Under Order XI
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.
3. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and
not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court
(2021) 6 SCC 418
may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and
status of the property.
4. After examination of parties Under Order X or production of
documents Under Order XI 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.
5. Under Order XL Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, a Court
Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in
question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.
6. The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to
7. 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.
8. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI
Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of
money on oral application.
9. 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 Code of Civil Procedure, demand
security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.
10. The Court exercising jurisdiction Under Section 47 or
Under Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 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.
11. 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.
12.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 XXI as well as grant
compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A.
13. Under Section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure 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.
14. 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.
15. The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it
is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance,
direct the concerned Police Station 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 stringently in accordance with
law.
16.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.
43. We further direct all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the
Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its
powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of
Code of Civil Procedure, within one year of the date of this Order. The
High Courts must ensure that the Rules are in consonance with Code of
Civil Procedure and the above directions, with an endeavour to expedite
the process of execution with the use of Information Technology tools.
Until such time these Rules are brought into existence, the above
directions shall remain enforceable."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The direction No.14 in Rahul S. Shah's case (supra) was
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoj Raj Garg Vs.
Goyal Education and Welfare Society and Ors 3, while observing
that every effort should be made by the executing court to decide
an execution petition within six months. It was further held that
the Court was duty bound to record reasons in writing for being
unable to dispose the same within the stipulated time limit.
10. In pursuance of the guidelines issued in Rahul S. Shah's case
(supra), this Court had issued a circular vide ROC. No.
1297/SO/2021 dated 26.05.2021, directing all subordinate courts to
comply with the aforesaid mandatory guidelines.
MANU/SCOR/130451/2022 : S.L.P.(C).No.19654 of 2022 decided on 18.11.2022
11. In the facts at hand, the underlying execution petition was
filed on 10.03.2023 and the matter was first heard on 03.04.2023.
Further a perusal of the record indicates that the judgment debtors
Nos.2, 6, 10 to 13 had filed their written arguments as early as
12.09.2023. Yet, the matter could not be adjudicated within six
months on account of a third-party claim being raised on
10.10.2023. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was adjourned in
a casual manner till the institution of the instant Civil Revision
Petition.
12. Subsequently the said claim petition was dismissed for default
vide order date 06.06.2024. It is seen that the matter now stands
posted to 19.08.2024 for Orders of the Court. Thus, though the
grievance of the petitioner for approaching this Court stand
redressed, this Court as an abundant caution hereby directs the
Executing Court to ensure that the main execution petition is
finally disposed of within a period of two months from the next
date of hearing including any new third party claims or any
applications being filed to delay the E.P, by taking the proceedings
on day to day basis if situation so warrants.
13. Subject to the above observations made, the Civil Revision
Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 26.07.2024
VSV/MRKR
