Decree Of 1989 Not Executed : Supreme Court Expresses Anguish; Says Judgment Creditor Entitled To Enjoy Fruits Of Decree In Reasonable Time

"It is very unfortunate that an order which was passed in favour of the respondent judgment-creditor for eviction of the petitioner passed on 28.08.1989 is yet not permitted to be executed by the judgment-debtor by initiating the proceedings one after another. It is very unfortunate that even after a period of 33 years, the judgment- creditor in whose favour the order is passed in the year 1989 is not able to enjoy the fruit of the litigation and the decree passed in his favour."

A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna observed that even after getting the decree in their favour the judgment-creditor has to run from pillar to post to get the same executed.

"It is said the real agony of a litigant starts when trying to execute a decree. In Gujarat, there was a trial court lawyer whose specialization was in obstructing executions", Justice Shah orally remarked during the hearing.

The now deceased landowner (respondent/judgment-creditor) filed an application for eviction, against the now deceased cultivating tenant (petitioner/judgment debtor) on 08.06.1982 before the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Dharmapuri under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The application was filed on the basis of allegation that damages were caused to the subject land. Eventually, on 28.08.1989, the Special Deputy directed to evict the judgment debtor. A revision petition was filed by the judgment debtor before the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 25.11.1994. The judgment-creditor filed for execution before Revenue Court, Salem. On 07.12.1995, the Special Deputy Court directed the subject property to be sub-divided to an extent of 6.91 cents. Since the Revenue Court did not pass a final order, the judgment-creditor filed an execution petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli and also a Revision before Madras High Court for the delay in execution. On 09.11.2010, the High Court directed the Revenue Court to dispose of the Execution Petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Consequently, the Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli, issued a notice on 18.01.2011 and directed the parties to appear before the Nathahalli Village Administrative Officer, on 23.02.2011. Aggrieved, the judgment debtor filed an application praying for dismissal of the notice dated 18.01.2011, which was eventually dismissed on 08.08.2011. Assailing the notice, dated 08.08.2011, the judgment debtor had filed a Revision Petition before the High Court.

The Madras High Court noted that the order challenged by the judgment debtor was merely a notice and not the final order. The High Court was of the view -

"Since the Revenue Court has not passed final order, the petitioner /cultivating tenant cannot challenge the notice, that too without participating in the proceedings."

Acknowledging the difficulties faced by the judgment-creditor in getting the decree, which was passed in his favour almost three decades ago, executed, it directed the Assistant Commission, Revenue Court, Thiruchirapalli to decide on the execution petition within a period of two months.

"From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the respondents are struggling to realize the fruits of the order from the year 1989 onwards. Even on 25.11.1994 also, this Court in C.R.P.No.2479 of 1989, directed the Revenue Court for speedy disposal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order. However, it is unfortunate to state that till date the respondents are unable to enjoy the fruits of the order, i.e., more than three decades. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Thiruchirapalli is hereby directed to dispose of E.P.No.2 of 2010, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

The Apex Court noted that the inordinate delay in execution has unreasonably interfered with the right to enjoy the benefit of the order passed in favour of the judgment-creditor, who has passed away in the interim. The Bench reprimanded the judgment-debtor for causing such delay, stating that if such tactics are permitted people would lose confidence in the justice delivery system.

"Every litigation has to put to an end at a particular time. The judgment-creditor is entitled to enjoy the fruit of the litigation within a reasonable time."

In view of the same, the Bench thought it fit to impose a cost amounting to Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the judgment-debtor to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

The Bench further directed the Executing Court to decide and dispose of the execution proceedings within a period of six months.

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the protracted execution proceedings in two other cases as well recently :

Decree-Holder Faces Same Problem In Execution As In 19th Century;Difficulties Of Litigant Begin After Obtaining Decree : Supreme Court

'Fit Case To Be Included In Law School Syllabus' : Supreme Court On 5th Round Of Litigation Stalling Execution In 50 Yr Old Suit

[Case Title: M. Chinnamuthu (Dead) v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam (Dead) Through Lrs. SLP (Civil) No. 2198 of 2022]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Headnotes

Civil Litigation - The judgment-creditor is entitled to enjoy the fruit of the litigation within a reasonable time - In our justice delivery system, the real litigation starts only after the decree is passed and the judgment-creditor has to wait for number of years for enjoying the fruit of the decree and the litigation. If such a delayed tactics is permitted, the litigant would lose the confidence in the justice delivery system. Every litigation has to put to an end at a particular time.

Factual Summary : Eviction order passed in 1989 yet not permitted to be executed by the judgment debtor by initiating the proceedings one after another - This is a clear example of the abuse of the process of law and the Court and not permitting the judgment-creditor to get the benefit under the decree which is passed in his favour in the year 1989 - Special Leave Petitions dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs.25,000/-