Justice Sudeepti Sharma, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Any Disposal Of Execution Proceedings Beyond 6 Months From Filing Shall Be Treated As Contempt: Punjab & Haryana High Court
|The Punjab and Haryana High Court was hearing a Revision Petition which was filed in the year 2023 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of the execution.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that any disposal of execution proceedings beyond six months from filing shall be treated as contempt of Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others (2021).
The Court held thus in a Revision Petition which was filed in the year 2023 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of the execution filed by the Petitioners expeditiously but not later than 6 months but since then the Executing Court was asking for extension of time to decide the same.
A Single Bench of Justice Sudeepti Sharma directed, “A copy of this order be sent to all District and Sessions Judges of States of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, who shall ensure strict compliance of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (supra) in their respective jurisdictions. Any disposal of execution proceedings beyond six months from filing shall be treated as contempt of the said judgment.”
The Bench remarked that the Executing Court was bound to conclude the execution application within six months of its filing and yet, nearly a decade has elapsed since the initiation of execution in 2015, and no effective enforcement order has been passed.
Advocate Vivek Suri represented the Petitioner while Addl. AG Animesh Sharma represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Application for extension of time in September 2023 was moved by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guruharsahai, which was received by Registrar General of the High Court. Further adjournment was granted to the judgment debtors, on account of their non-appearance, thereby affording them additional time. The Court allowed the application and extension of two months was granted for disposing of the execution proceeding. Thereafter, another application for extension of time was moved by the said Civil Judge in December 2023 and the Court further granted 3 months’ time to decide the case and submit compliance report.
Subsequently, yet another application for seeking extension of time was moved and again further time was granted. Even after caution, another application was moved by the Judge. Nearly a decade after filing the execution in the year 2015, the execution proceedings were still stalled by the Executing Court and the reasoning given this time by the Executing Court for extension of time was, that the legal opinion have been sought by District Attorney concerned for proceeding further in the matter. Due to multiple rounds of applications seeking extension of time, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “In the present case, the reasons recorded by the Executing Court in its applications for extension of time do not disclose any genuine inability to decide the matter; rather, they reveal a pattern of granting repeated accommodations to the respondent-State to comply with the judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed in the regular second appeal. This conduct demonstrates a clear departure from the discipline mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and amounts to permitting dilatory tactics contrary to the binding directions.”
The Court said that the Respondent-State has been granted unwarranted adjournments, which amounts, in substance, to a contemptuous disregard of the Supreme Court’s Judgment.
“In the present case, the stated justification in all applications for extension is merely the inability of the State of Punjab to comply with the order dated 02.08.2017 passed in RSA-3843-2017. Such reasoning does not justify delay, it constitutes a calculated attempt to prolong execution and gain time. The zimni orders and repeated extension requests demonstrate that the Executing Court has, in effect accommodated the respondent-State in non-compliance by granting serial adjournments, rather than exercising its authority to bring the matter to a close within the statutory framework”, it added.
The Court noted that this prolonged pendency persists despite the binding mandate of Rahul S. Shah’s case, delivered in 2021, requiring strict adherence to the six-month disposal period.
The Court further observed, “This Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed in CR-2181 2023, directed Executing Court to conclude the execution proceeding within a period of 6 months by observing that execution proceedings were initiated almost 8 years ago in the year 2015. Thereafter, further 11 months extension was granted to the Executing Court till 18.11.2024. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (supra) passed in the year 2021 has categorically given timeline of 6 months for disposal of the execution proceedings from the date of its filing.”
The Court added that any extension beyond this period can only be granted by recording specific reasons in writing for the delay and this delay refers to circumstances attributable to the Executing Court itself such as unavoidable procedural impediments or circumstances beyond its control.
“After eight years, decree holder was forced to approach this Court for directions to the Executing Court to execute the decree which is in favour of the decree holder i.e. the petitioners. Since 2015 till 2025 i.e. almost a decade, the Executing Court is not able to perform its duty. This amounts to contempt of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (supra) . Rather not only the judicial officers, who are exercising the powers of Executing Court but the officers of the Punjab who are trying to delay are also causing disobedience of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (supra) which if continued, would attract the consequences of willful disobedience as contemplated under law”, it also held.
Conclusion
The Court, therefore, directed the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur to take immediate steps to ensure compliance of directions of Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case and to issue appropriate directions to the Executing Court to proceed strictly in accordance with law.
“The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guru Har Sahai, shall decide the execution application within a maximum period of two months from the date of this order, on a day-to-day basis. … It is made abundantly clear that no further extension shall be granted by this Court under any circumstances”, it concluded.
Cause Title- Kanwar Naresh Singh Sodhi v. State of Punjab and Others (Case Number: CM-4553-CII-2025 in CR-2181-2023)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vivek Suri, Abhishek Sanghi, Dushyant Godara, and Kritika Sharma.
Respondents: Addl. AG Animesh Sharma