Disposed¶24

Deen Dayal Sahu v. Suresh Kumar and 13 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025A227/3850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition of execution proceedings; decree-holder petition under Article 227; six-month timeline for execution (Para 42.12, Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418); Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507; Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society, SLP (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022; Execution Case No. 31 of 2022; Original Suit No. 2138 of 2019 decreed 02.05.2021; Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar; Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:58249; decided 21.4.2025 by Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executing Court / learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar to proceed with Execution Case No. 31 of 2022 and decide it in the light of the Apex Court's dictum within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. ¶24

Deen Dayal Sahu vs Suresh Kumar and 13 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58249

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3850 of 2025 Petitioner :- Deen Dayal Sahu Respondent :- Suresh Kumar And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

This is a plaintff's-decree holder petition seeking a direction upon Executing Court/ learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar for expediting the Execution Case No.31 of 2022.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an Original Suit No. 2138 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner which was decreed on 02.05.2021. Against the said order, defendants had neither filed any civil appeal nor any application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The said facts have been stated in para 11 of the writ petition.

¶7

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:-

¶8

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.

¶9

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:

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

***

¶13

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.

¶14

***

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

***

¶19

42.12. 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.

¶20

__*

¶21

(Emphasis supplied)

¶22

74. 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.

¶23

In view of the said facts, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with the Execution Case No.31 of 2022 and decide the same in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 // SK Goswami

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deen Dayal Sahu v. Suresh Kumar and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deen Dayal Sahu v. Suresh Kumar and 13 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

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs Smt. Shashi Yadav

Hovind Prakash vs Ankit Agrawal, Director, Directorate of Minority Welfare, Govt. of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Yadav vs Smt. Rampatti Devi and Another

Amar Nath Verma Since Dead and 2 Others vs Rajendra Prasad Alias Sadho Prasad and 5 Others

Anurag Lamba vs Smt. Gudia

Parmatma Nand Tiwari vs Sri Alok Pratap Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bairiya and Another