The Supreme Court directed that execution petitions must be concluded within six months, warning that presiding officers will be held accountable for undue delays.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has once again highlighted the inefficiencies in the judicial system, particularly in the execution of decrees. In a recent ruling in Periyammal (Dead Through Legal Representatives) and Others v. V. Rajamani (2025), the apex court expressed deep concern over the inordinate delays in execution proceedings.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan highlighted the procedural delays plaguing execution proceedings in India. The court addressed the decree holders, stating:
“The seeker of justice, many a times, has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and procedural law. Even after Even after obtaining a decree, the execution remains an uphill battle, often delayed due to unnecessary objections and procedural technicalities.”
The verdict serves as a stern reminder to lower courts that execution petitions must be concluded within six months, failing which the Presiding Officers will be held accountable by the respective High Courts.
Decades-Long Battle for Justice: A Case Study
The case in question dates back to 1986, when the original decree-holder sought specific performance of a contract. Despite obtaining a decree in his favor, the enforcement process proved to be an arduous battle. Following his demise, his legal heirs continued the fight:
- 2004: The legal heirs filed an execution petition.
- 2006: A revision petition was moved due to persistent delays.
- 2008: The court finally passed an order of possession.
- 2024: The Supreme Court had to intervene to ensure enforcement.
The prolonged litigation highlights a harsh reality of the Indian judicial system—winning a case is merely the beginning of a much longer struggle.
ALSO READ: ANALYSIS| ‘How High Courts Should tackle Conflicting Judgments’: Supreme Court clarifies
Precedents Cited
To clarify the scope and nature of execution proceedings, the Supreme Court referred to several landmark judgments:
- Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997) 3 SCC 697: Affirmed that any person, whether bound by the decree or not, can raise objections under Order XXI Rule 97, ensuring that execution courts hear such objections to prevent parallel litigation.
- Shreenath & Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 543: Defined “any person” under Order XXI Rule 97 to include those with independent rights, allowing executing courts to resolve possession disputes without requiring fresh suits.
- Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust (1998) 3 SCC 723: Confirmed that transferees pendente lite and non-decree-holders can also challenge execution under Order XXI Rule 97, enabling comprehensive adjudication of disputes within execution proceedings.
- NSS Narayan Sarma & Ors. v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 662: Emphasized the wide powers of executing courts to adjudicate disputes regarding right, title, and interest, discouraging separate suits on the same issues.
- Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain (1995) 1 SCC 6: Clarified that applications filed under Section 47 CPC but involving third-party resistance must be treated under Order XXI Rule 97 to avoid technical dismissals.
- Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418: Established guidelines for efficient execution, mandating that proceedings should not extend beyond six months unless justified by compelling reasons.
Legal Reasoning: Section 47 CPC vs. Order XXI Rule 97 CPC
The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It clarified:
- Section 47 CPC pertains to disputes between parties regarding execution, satisfaction, or discharge of a decree.
- Order XXI Rule 97 CPC applies when a third party or even a judgment-debtor resists possession, requiring the court to adjudicate such claims.
In the present case, the respondents’ application under Section 47 was a disguised attempt to invoke Order XXI Rule 97. The Court ruled that objections regarding independent possession claims must be dealt with under Rule 97.
Key Directives from the Supreme Court
- High Courts to Monitor Execution Cases: High Courts must collect data on all pending execution petitions and issue directives ensuring their disposal within six months.
- Accountability of Presiding Officers: Judges who delay execution proceedings will be answerable to the High Court.
- Immediate Relief to Decree-Holders: In this case, the Supreme Court ordered possession to be granted within two months, with police assistance if necessary.
Preventing Frivolous or Collusive Claims
The Court identified the respondents’ claims as potentially collusive, considering that they had obtained tenant status through cooperation from the original vendors—after the decree-holder’s title had already been confirmed. The Court emphasized that:
- Executing courts must be vigilant against collusive or last-minute obstructionist claims.
- Once a decree is final, the executing court cannot question its validity.
- Delayed assertions of tenancy rights cannot override a decree for possession.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling is expected to significantly impact the execution of decrees, particularly in cases involving immovable property:
- Reduced Procedural Delays: Courts must prevent attempts to frustrate execution through baseless objections.
- Enhanced Vigilance of Executing Courts: Presiding officers must handle obstructionist tactics in an expedient manner, with the option to involve law enforcement.
- Finality of Decrees: Parties who fail to assert their claims in the original litigation cannot sabotage execution by raising fresh objections.
- Binding Directives to High Courts: High Courts must oversee execution proceedings to ensure compliance with the six-month timeline.
Simplified Understanding of Key Concepts
- Section 47 CPC: Governs disputes between decree-holders and judgment-debtors regarding execution but does not permit fresh title claims.
- Order XXI Rule 97 CPC: Allows decree-holders to challenge obstruction by third parties, enabling the court to decide possession-related disputes.
- Order XXI Rule 99 CPC: Permits third parties dispossessed under a decree to seek restoration of possession if they have an independent right.
- No “Going Behind the Decree” Principle: Executing courts cannot reopen the merits of a case once a decree is final.
The ruling in Periyammal v. V. Rajamani & Anr. reinforces the principle that execution should not become an endless legal battle. The Supreme Court has unequivocally directed High Courts to monitor execution cases rigorously, ensuring that decree-holders receive justice without undue delay.
This judgment:
- Reaffirms the authority of executing courts to reject manufactured objections.
- Establishes accountability in execution proceedings.
- Prevents litigants from raising belated claims to disrupt enforcement.
By emphasizing that a decree is meant to be enforced swiftly and effectively, the Supreme Court has taken a critical step toward judicial efficiency, ensuring that litigants do not inherit prolonged legal battles from their predecessors
CASE TITLE: Periyammal (Dead Through Legal Representatives) and Others v. V. Rajamani
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: March 6, 2025
CITATION: 2025 INSC 329
READ THE ORDER:
READ THE JUDGEMENT :
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
