Noting the inordinate delay of three to four years just to pass appropriate orders in executive petitions the Apex court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that such procrastination leads to frustration of the decree -holder who lies in wait for closure .

The slow pace of decisions of district judiciaries on the petitions prompted the bench to instruct High Courts to issue an administrative circular directing trial courts to resolve pending execution petitions within six months. Any failure to comply with the period will result in the presiding officer being held accountable to the High Court on the administrative side..

The opening remarks of the court in their judgment underscored the message that justice delayed is justice denied. Calling attention to the order in the case of Shreenath & Anr. V. Rajesh & Ors reported in (1998), the bench lamented that, “It is said that the woes for the litigants in this country start once they are able to obtain a decree in their favor and are unable to execute and reap its fruits for years together’’.

‘’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’’ stated the bench.

This was the case of Ayyayoo Udayar who had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants concerning an agreement of sale. After the petitioner’s death during the proceedings, his legal heirs continued to pursue the case. Several legal proceedings continued over years and the court ultimately ruled in favor of the suit.

In 2004, the decree-holder by way of a petition requested the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of the property, but the same was dismissed. The impugned order was challenged through a civil revision petition, which was allowed in 2006. Yet another petition for the execution of the sale deed was filed, and in 2008, and an order for possession delivery of the property was passed. However, it could not be implemented.

In the course of deliberation of the matter the bench quoted the case of Rahul Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), in which the court had issued guidelines for conduct of execution proceedings which were to be finalized within six months from the date of filing. The case of Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors. (2022) was also noted to have held similarly.

“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’’.

The bench concluded by stating , “The Executing Court shall now proceed to ensure that 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 two months from today without fail.

Case Title: Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. v/s V. Rajamani and Anr.Etc.