NEW DELHI, 6 MAR

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked all high courts to direct civil courts in their jurisdiction to decide the execution petitions within six months, failing which presiding officers would be held liable.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal further ordered the high courts to summon the data from the district judiciary over the pendency of such execution petitions.

The execution petitions, the bench said, filed for execution of decrees in civil disputes were pending for three-four years.

"If the execution petitions remain pending for three-four years, it defeats the very purpose of decree," Justice Pardiwala said.

The verdict came in a 1980 civil dispute from Tamil Nadu.

"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," the bench said.

The court directed that after collecting the data, the high courts should issue an administrative order or a circular to the respective district judiciary asking the execution petitions to be decided and disposed of within six months without fail.

"Otherwise the presiding officer concerned would be answerable to the high court on its administrative side," it added.

The verdict said once the relevant data was collected by the high courts, it should be forwarded to the registry of the top court with individual reports.

The registry was directed to convey the order to all high courts and the matter was posted after seven months for compliance.

The top court noted in its verdict in 2021 and subsequently in 2022 it directed the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing but the directions were yet to be followed.

It pointed out a "long and inordinate" delay on the part of the executing courts in the country in deciding such petitions.

The civil dispute before the bench concerned a sale agreement of 30 June, 1980 entered by Tamil Nadu resident Ayyavoo Udayar over a piece of land.

After the dispute arose over title of the land, Udayar filed a civil suit for specific performance against the defendants in 1986 with respect to an agreement to sell.

In 2004, the decree-holder filed a petition to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the property. It was, however, dismissed.

This was challenged by way of a revision petition, which was allowed in 2006 but the sale deed was again not executed.

In 2008, an order of delivery of possession was passed but not executed.

The top court held that the high court "committed an egregious error" in passing the order.

"We must now ensure that the appellants are able to reap the fruits of the decree. We are also of the view that the rejection by the high court of the amendments to the execution petition filed by the appellants, was erroneous and deserves to be set aside."

The executing court should now proceed to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property was handed over to the appellants in their capacity as decree holders and if necessary, with the aid of police, within two months "without fail".