Km. Swati Gupta vs Krishna Kumar Gupta and 16 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53500

Court No. - 9

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2960 of 2025

Petitioner :- Km. Swati Gupta Respondent :- Krishna Kumar Gupta And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶8

"Issue a order or direction, directing the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Banda to decide the Execution Case No. 08 of 2021 (Satyam Gupta and others Vs. Krishna Kumar Gupta and others) within stipulated period as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

It is contended that the plaintiff-decree holder had instituted Original Suit No.94 of 1995, which was decreed on 14.09.2021. According to the petitioner, no appeal was preferred against the said order. No application was moved for recalling the decree dated 14.09.2021 by the defendant-judgment debtor, which has been stated in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. An Execution Case No. 8 of 2021 was filed, which is pending consideration. The sole prayer made in the writ petition is for expeditious disposal of the said case.

¶10

Recently, the Apex Court, on 06.03.2025, in Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 had held that the execution proceedings should be concluded expeditiously considering the earlier judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 . Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereasunder:-

¶11

"72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions.

¶12

73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S. Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:

¶13

42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:

¶14

42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking 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.

¶15

***

¶16

42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure 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.

¶17

***

¶18

42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. 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.

¶19

42.9. 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.

¶20

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.

¶21

***

¶22

4 2.12. 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.

¶23

_* (Emphasis supplied)_**

¶24

The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022."

¶25

In view of the said fact, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with Execution Case No. 08 of 2021 (Satyam Gupta and others Vs. Krishna Kumar Gupta and others) and decide the same in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court within a

¶26

period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Kushal

¶29

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Swati Gupta v. Krishna Kumar Gupta and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Swati Gupta v. Krishna Kumar Gupta and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar vs District Election Officer, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Trust Baba Munshidas, Nari, Mauja Gurha, Pargana and Tehsil- Fatehabad District- Agra and Another vs Satish Singh and 5 Others

Dwarikanath and 5 Others vs Rajbahadur and Another

Tahir Hussain and 2 Other vs Taufiq Ahamad and 12 Other

Pankaj Dubey vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sri Avinash Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others