The Apex Court in its latest pronouncement, while deciding appeals against common judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court in two Civil Revisions filed by the Appellants, took a serious note of the long pendency of the execution petitions before executing courts thus, depriving the decree-holders from reaping the fruits of the decree for years together.
In the case at hand, the father (deceased) of the Appellants had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the Respondents, with Respondent No. 01 and 02 being impleaded in the capacity of them being in possession of the property, though they were not the owners. The suit was decreed as prayed for by the Additional Subordinate Judge (ASJ) giving one month’s time to Respondents to execute the sale deed, failing which the court would execute the same. This led to several litigations between the parties. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the ASJ which came to be allowed. The Appellants, being aggrieved of the said order approached the High Court of Madras by way of Civil Revisions, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court by virtue of the impugned orders rejected the revision petitions and thereby affirmed the orders passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem (“ASJ”) one allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, respectively, under Section 47 of the CPC and rejecting the application filed by the appellants herein seeking amendment in the execution petition.
The Supreme Court upon considering the matter on merits, set-aside the impugned orders of the High Court as being erroneous and observing that the case at hand is nothing but a case of apparent collusion between the vendors and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to deprive the appellants from availing the fruits of the decree in their favor.
Furthermore, before parting with the judgment, the Apex Court reiterated the guidelines and the directions issued in “Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi” reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 for conduct of execution proceedings.
The Court laid specific focus on the disposal of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which, it observed, may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
The Apex Court, as such, directed the High Courts to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions, and thereafter 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, holding, “otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.”
The Court further directed all the High Courts to forward the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal to the Registry of the Supreme Court and further directed the Registry to notify this matter once again after seven months only for the purpose of reporting compliance of the directions issued by it.
