Direct Courts To Dispose Execution Petitions Within 6 Months, Hold Presiding Officer Liable On Failure : Supreme Court Asks High Courts

The Supreme Court today(March 6) directed all High Courts to call for information on all pending execution petitions in the district judiciary. It passed the directions after observing that the executing Courts are taking three to four years to pass appropriate orders, thereby, frustrating the entire decree which is in the favour of the decree-holder.

The Court directed the High Courts to issue an administrative circular asking the trial courts to ensure that pending execution petitions are decided within six months. On failure to do so, the Presiding Officer will be answerable to the High Court on the administrative side.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal ordered : 

"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."

The bench noted that in Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), the Court had directed that the execution proceedings be completed within six months fromthe date of filing. Same direction was reiterated in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors.(2022). Despite these directions, execution petitions are facing inordinate delays, the Court lamented.

After deciding a metter related to execution, the Court stated in the judgment :

"Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions."

In this case, one Ayyavoo Udayar had filed a civil suit for specific performance against the defendants in 1986 with respect to an agreement to sell. Since the petitioner died during the pendency, his legal representatives continued the proceedings. In between, many legal proceedings took place and the Court ultimately decreed the suit.

In 2004, the decree-holder filed a petition to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the property. However, it was dismissed. This was challenged via a civil revision petition, which was allowed in 2006. Again, a petition was filed for execution of the sale deed. In 2008, an order of delivery of possession was passed. However, it could not be effected. 

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed the executing Court to put the petitioners in possession, if necessary with the aid of police.

The Court ordered: "In the result, the appeal succeeded and thereby allowed. Impugned judgment by the High Court is set aside. The order passed by the executing Court is also hereby set aside. The executing Court shall proceed to ensure that the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the Appellants in their capacity as decree-holders. And if necessary, with the aid of police. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 months from today."

After the judgment was pronounced, Justice Pardiwala said : "We have also issued directions all High Courts to call for information as regards all pending execution petitions in the district judiciary because it appears that these executing Courts are taking three to four years to pass appropriate orders, thereby, frustrating the entire decree which is in the favour of the decree-holder."

Case Details: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS Versus V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC|SLP(C) No. 8490-8492/2020

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Click here to read the judgment