New Delhi: Concerned over the chronic delays in enforcement of court decrees in civil cases, the Supreme Court, in a recent order, mandated all high courts to develop a mechanism to decide execution petitions within six months.
The top court’s direction came after it was informed that over 8 lakh execution petitions are pending in district courts of the country, with Maharashtra accounting for nearly 39 percent of the total pendency. This means that close to 3,41,000 execution petitions await a final disposal in the state’s district judiciary.
About two-thirds of the total pendency in this category is in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Tamil Nadu has 86,148 cases still awaiting a decision, and a 82,997 cases in Kerala. In Andhra Pradesh, 68,137 execution petitions are pending, while adjudication is yet to be finalised in 52,219 cases in Madhya Pradesh.
Executive petitions are the final stage of civil litigation, allowing the winning party (decree-holder) to compel the other party to carry out the court’s order, such as recovering money or taking possession of property. A decree-holder takes recourse to file an execution petition when the judgment-debtor (losing party) fails to comply with the decision.
Highly disappointed with the staggering pendency in execution petitions, the top court lamented about the systemic delay, observing that the indifference of the district judiciary to ensure enforcement of judicial orders has rendered court decrees meaningless. It reiterated earlier Supreme court guidelines that fixed a six-month timeline to dispose execution petitions.
Execution petitions are filed in trial courts under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to enforce judicial orders or judgments. It’s a process of giving effect to the court’s decree.
There are 106 rules under Order 21 that provide a detailed process to execute a civil court decree.
Also Read: ‘Tareekh pe tareekh’ is not it. Here’s why India’s district courts are staring at massive pendency
Waiting for justice even after victory
Pendency of execution petitions paints a grim picture of the justice delivery system in India, where a decree-holder, even after winning a case, might have to wait for decades before the judgment is enforced.
Despite SC’s repeated assertions to maintain a strict deadline, over 8,82,000 execution petitions remain pending across district courts.
This figure came to the SC’s notice in a case where, in March, the top court took cognisance of unreasonable delay in execution of a court order in a land-sale case originating from Tamil Nadu.
The original dispute goes back to 1980 when a landowner in Tamil Nadu’s Salem district did not execute a sale deed even upon receiving an advance payment from the buyer.
A suit for specific performance was filed in a Salem court in 1983 that was decided in 1986 in favour of the buyer. In 2004, the Madras HC upheld the civil court decree and it was followed by a confirmation by the Supreme Court in 2006.
A year later, when the buyer approached the court with an execution petition, new facts emerged. Two persons, claiming to be cultivating tenants filed their objections and sought a relief against dispossession under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.
Explaining the case, advocate Mrinal Kanwar, who was the advocate-on-record for the buyer in SC, said: “A cultivating farmer, who is a tenant, can only be dispossessed by a revenue court through a separate proceeding.”
The objectors claimed they were cultivating the land since 1967 and, therefore, the sale deed did not bind them.
Kanwar said the execution proceedings languished for 13 years between the trial court and HC, before her client approached the top court in 2020. “Since objections were raised, the execution proceedings ended in a re-trial. Both the trial court and HC upheld the objections,” she added.
In SC, Kanwar’s client claimed the objectors’ claim was technically flawed because they had filed their objections not as third-party contenders, but as party to the original suit.
Also, the SC noticed that the tenancy was created in 2008, post SC’s 2006 judgment in the original suit. “Any tenancy created after the landlord lost title or after a decree for possession is not recognised under the law,” Kanwar explained.
‘A mini civil suit’
Lawyers who practise in trial courts said it is very rare that a judgment-debtor willingly complies with a civil suit decree. Resultantly, a decree-holder or a person who wins a civil suit, even in the Supreme Court, often ends up filing an execution petition. Hearing of an execution petition is akin to a mini civil suit.
The Supreme Court has in the past emphasised the importance of execution petitions, while acknowledging the difficulties litigants face in India upon obtaining a decree. Back in 1872, the Privy Council had underscored a similar sentiment about the looming gap between a judicial verdict and its enforcement.
Over a century later, in 1998, the Supreme Court made a similar observation on the woes of a litigant, who, despite a favourable order was unable to execute and reap its benefits for years.
“Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has to undergo a long distance by passing through the ordained procedure in the execution proceedings before he receives the bowl of justice,” the top court said, as it lamented at the time-consuming process involved in deciding execution petitions.
SC’s repeated directions
In the last one decade, the Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, spoken about the failure of a successful litigant’s efforts to secure justice owing to unjustified delay in execution of a court decision.
The top court had in 2013 observed: “ …there should not be unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because the decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed (by filing of an execution petition)”.
In 2021, the SC had stressed upon timely disposal of an execution petition, preferably within six months of its institution. It asked all district courts dealing with suits and execution petitions to mandatorily follow its 14-point guidelines that provided a roadmap to examine parties in the suit and production of documents, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, etc.
One directive, which stood out, restrained district courts from entertaining applications that were already considered by the court, that could have been settled while adjudicating the main matter.
Besides, SC ordered execution courts to give reasons in case proceedings in execution petitions go beyond six months.
Notably, SC had then also asked all high courts to frame rules and endeavour to expedite disposal of execution petitions.
A year later, in 2022, the SC reiterated its six-month deadline directive. On realising that the executing courts were not abiding with its earlier directions, SC affirmed its stand that the timeline of six months can be relaxed only by recording reasons in writing.
“Every effort should be made to dispose of the execution petition within the said time limit,” it said.
Speaking to ThePrint, a lawyer practising in Delhi said: “There are some parts of the CPC that can be amended by respective HCs, while there are some that only Parliament can do. The SC direction in 2021, reiterated in 2022, and affirmed now is a mandate to the HCs to frame the rules to prevent inordinate and unexplainable delay in disposing execution petitions.”
(Edited by Viny Mishra)