“Execution” in itself is not defined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In simple words it means a process for enforcing a decree that is passed in favour of the decree-holder by a competent court. Section 37 to 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in related to the courts competent enough to execute a decree.
In the present suit, Mr. Bhoj Raj approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging an order of whereby the Executing Court had dismissed the Petitioner's application for preponement/early hearing of the case titled "Bhoj Raj Garg Vs. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society etc."
Since, the High Court repudiated to exercise its jurisdiction upon the matter, Mr. Bhoj Raj approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India contending that the Execution Court was not abiding by the directions issued by the Apex Court in the matter of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi where the Court had held that, the Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Petitions within six months, from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
Thus, the Apex Court reiterated that:
- The Executing Court must examine the parties to the suit in relation to 3rd party interest and further direct the parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties
- After examination of parties, or production of documents, or receipt of commission report, the Executing Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.
- A Court Receiver can be also appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as “custodia legis” (in the custody of the law.) for proper adjudication of the matter.
- The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensures that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.
- The Court must ensure immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.
- Before settlement of issues, the Defendant may be required to disclose its assets on oath, to the extent that it is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree
- The Court must not issue notice on an application of third-party claiming rights. Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the Applicant.
- The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with Affidavits.
- The Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
- The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned Police Station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the same must be dealt stringently in accordance with law.
While observing the aforesaid directions, the Apex Court was of the view that it was the duty of the Execution Court to dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which can be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. The Execution Court is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter. Accordingly, while reiterating the above directions, the Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition along with the pending interlocutory application(s).