Bhoj Raj Garg Vs Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court, in Bhoj Raj Garg Vs Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors., reiterated the mandatory directions governing the timely disposal of execution proceedings. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court complaining that the executing court was not complying with the directions previously issued in Rahul S. Shah Vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 418. The central grievance concerned the continued pendency of execution proceedings despite the Supreme Court’s earlier direction requiring executing courts to dispose of execution petitions within six months of filing, subject to extension only upon recording written reasons. The petitioner sought enforcement of these directions to ensure that the decree obtained in his favour was implemented without further delay.
The underlying dispute originated from a judgment and decree dated 18 January 2019. The decree-holder instituted Execution Petition No. 190/2019 on 20 March 2019 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. Despite the passage of more than three years, the execution proceedings remained pending. The decree-holder consequently applied for preponement or an early hearing, contending that continued delay frustrated the purpose of the decree. However, the executing court rejected the application on 27 April 2022. The decree-holder challenged that decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. His principal submission was that the executing court’s refusal to expedite proceedings was inconsistent with the directions issued by the Supreme Court for timely enforcement of civil decrees.
Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner relied upon Rahul S. Shah Vs Jitender Gandhi and Others, 2021 AIR (SC) 2161, submitting that the Supreme Court had prescribed a six-month period for disposal of execution petitions. During the hearing, however, the petitioner’s senior counsel acknowledged that the decree-holder had subsequently filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the execution petition. That application had been allowed on 13 July 2022. Counsel further informed the Court that only defendant No. 4 was contesting the execution proceedings, while the remaining defendants had been proceeded against ex parte. These subsequent developments became relevant to the High Court’s assessment of whether immediate supervisory intervention was warranted.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Bajaj, declined to interfere with the executing court’s order. The High Court particularly noted that the amendment of the execution petition had been permitted only a few days before its hearing. Considering this procedural development, it held that the circumstances did not justify exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227. Accordingly, the civil revision petition was dismissed. The High Court’s decision was based on the procedural circumstances existing at that stage, particularly the recent amendment of the execution petition. It did not expressly invalidate or dilute the Supreme Court’s general directions concerning the expeditious disposal of execution proceedings.
In the subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner again complained that the executing court was not observing the directions issued in Rahul S. Shah Vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 418. The Supreme Court specifically referred to paragraph 42 of that judgment, which contained mandatory directions for courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings. In particular, direction No. 2 required executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, with any extension permissible only upon recording reasons in writing. The Court considered the language of this direction and emphasised that it imposed a duty upon executing courts to make every effort to conclude execution proceedings within the prescribed period.
The Supreme Court explained that the six-month timeline was intended to be observed in practice and was not merely an aspirational target. Where an executing court could not dispose of an execution petition within that period, it was required to have reasons explaining the delay and to record those reasons in writing. The Court stated that the executing court was duty-bound to comply with this requirement. The direction therefore imposes two related obligations: first, the court must endeavour to dispose of execution proceedings within six months of filing; second, where disposal within that period is not possible, the court must formally record the reasons for the delay. The Supreme Court’s observations reinforced the importance of timely enforcement of decrees and the need for judicial accountability when execution proceedings extend beyond the prescribed period.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court reiterated the directions already issued in Rahul S. Shah and disposed of the special leave petition subject to its observations. Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. The Court did not prescribe a separate deadline for disposal of the petitioner’s particular execution proceedings, nor did it undertake a fresh examination of the factual circumstances that had led the Punjab and Haryana High Court to refuse an early hearing. Its order instead reaffirmed the continuing obligation of executing courts to comply with the six-month disposal requirement and to record written reasons where delay occurs. The combined effect of the two orders is that, although supervisory intervention may depend upon the procedural circumstances of an individual case, executing courts remain bound to make every effort to complete execution proceedings within the prescribed period and to provide written justification for delays.
Cases Discussed
1. Rahul S. Shah Vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors. (Supreme Court); (2021) 6 SCC 418; 2021 AIR (SC) 2161. This was the principal precedent expressly relied upon in both proceedings. The Supreme Court reiterated paragraph 42, direction No. 2, requiring executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months of filing, extendable only upon recording written reasons. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier considered the same precedent but declined supervisory intervention because the execution petition had recently been amended.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The complaint of the petitioner is that the Execution Court is not abiding by the directions issued by this Court in the decision in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418. In the said decision, this Court held as follows:-
“42 All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions :-
2. 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.”
This means that it becomes the duty of the Execution Court to dispose of the execution proceedings at the earliest and since this Court has directed that the Execution Court must 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, this direction is meant to be observed. This would mean that every effort should be made to dispose of the execution petition within the said time limit and the Execution Court should have reasons for not being able to dispose of the execution petition. The Execution Court is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter.
We need only reiterate what this court has already ordered. Subject to these observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
