M/s.Hitech Engineering and Construction Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

¶1

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶7

M/s.Hitech Engineering and Construction, S-10, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Semmandalam, Cuddalore, Represented by its Managing Partner, S.V.Rajan @ Rajarajan

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Local Administration, Fort St.George, Cuddalore.

¶11

The District Collector/Chairman, R.G.R.P. Housing Project, DRDA Office, Beach Road, Cuddalore. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, pleased to direct the learned I^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore to dispose of the E.P.No.70 of 2024 in O.S.No.135 of 2013 within a stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶13

1 / 10

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader (C.S)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a

¶19

direction to the learned I^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, to dispose E.P.No.70 of 2024 in O.S.No.135 of 2013.

¶20

The revision petitioner is a plaintiff, who had filed a suit against the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.135 of 2013 before the I^st Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore and the learned I^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, by an order dated 30.10.2017, had partly decreed the suit directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.23,99,242/- towards the amount due with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner/plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2017, the respondents had preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.131 of 2019 and this Court, by an order dated 08.08.2023 disposed of the Appeal Suit directing the respondents to pay the balance 50% of the amount as full and final settlement to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.70 of 2024 on 09.01.2024

¶21

2 / 10

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶24

before the I^st Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondents entered appearance, they have been repeatedly taking time for filing counter and till date, there is no progress in the execution petition and the executing Court has also been repeatedly adjourning the matter for filing counter, thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner/decree holder was decreed on 30.10.2017 and this Court has disposed of the Appeal Suit on 08.08.2023. However, the execution petition filed by the petitioner on 09.01.2024 is still pending and therefore, even after getting the decree in his favour, the petitioner is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. Hence, he seeks for a direction to the executing Court to dispose the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner within a specified time frame.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record, this Court is able to see that the suit was decreed in the year 2017 and despite the order being passed in the Appeal Suit on

¶27

3 / 10

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶30

08.08.2023, the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner on 09.01.2024 is still pending and there is no progress in the execution proceedings.

¶31

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs & Ors vs. V.Rajamani & Anr Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 329 , referring to the earlier decisions made in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 and Bhoj Raj Garg vs.Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976, has held that the executing Courts must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the execution petitions shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.

¶32

The paragraphs concerning the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision are extracted hereunder :-

¶33

“72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the

¶34

4 / 10

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶37

end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions.

¶38

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:

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.

¶42

42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of Commission report, the 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.

¶43

42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the

¶44

5 / 10

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶47

matter.

¶48

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.

¶49

42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

¶50

42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

6 / 10

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶56

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.

¶57

42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term “… in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.

¶58

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.

¶59

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned 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 with stringently in accordance with law.

¶60

42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the executing courts.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶61

74. The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul

¶62

7 / 10

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶65

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 & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.

¶66

75. In view of the aforesaid, 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. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports.''

¶67

In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.

¶68

Accordingly, the learned I^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, is directed to dispose the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.70 of 2024 in O.S.No.135

¶69

8 / 10

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

C.R.P.No.1157 of 2025

¶72

of 2013, in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred above and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶73

21.03.2025

¶74

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ham

¶75

To

¶76