Dr. Bhoj Raj Garg Vs Goyal Education and Welfare Society and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Dr. Bhoj Raj Garg Vs Goyal Education and Welfare Society and Others, dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the executing court’s refusal to advance the hearing of a pending execution petition. The petitioner, a decree-holder, had obtained a judgment and decree dated 18 January 2019 and filed Execution Petition No. 190/2019 on 20 March 2019. As the execution proceedings remained pending for more than three years, he sought preponement or early hearing, but the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, rejected his application on 27 April 2022. Challenging this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahul S. Shah Vs Jitender Gandhi and Others, 2021 AIR (SC) 2161, which prescribed a six-month period for disposal of execution petitions from the date of filing. He argued that the prolonged pendency justified intervention by the High Court to ensure timely enforcement of the decree.
The High Court, however, considered an important subsequent development in the execution proceedings. During the hearing, the petitioner’s senior counsel acknowledged that the decree-holder had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the execution petition, which had been allowed on 13 July 2022, merely eight days before the High Court’s decision. Counsel also informed the Court that only defendant No. 4 was contesting the execution proceedings, while the remaining defendants had been proceeded against ex parte. Justice Manoj Bajaj observed that, considering the recent amendment of the execution petition, the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the executing court’s refusal to grant an early hearing and dismissed the civil revision petition. The decision demonstrates that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s directions for expeditious disposal of execution proceedings, supervisory intervention depends upon the specific procedural circumstances of each case.
Cases Discussed
1. Rahul S. Shah Vs Jitender Gandhi and Others (Supreme Court); 2021 AIR (SC) 2161. The petitioner relied upon this decision for the Supreme Court’s direction concerning disposal of execution petitions within six months from filing. The High Court considered the submission but declined supervisory intervention because the execution petition had been amended shortly before the hearing. Related TaxGuru discussion: Supreme Court Directions on Six-Month Disposal of Execution Proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
CM-6768-CII-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Documents are taken on record.
Main case
Decree-holder (petitioner) has approached this Court to challenge the order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby the executing court proceeded to dismiss his application for pre-ponement/early hearing of the case bearing Execution No.190/2019, titled “Bhoj Raj Garg Vs. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society etc.”.
Learned senior counsel has argued that the subject execution petition arises from judgment and decree dated 18.01.2019, which was filed on 20.03.2019, but the same is pending for a long time and the Executing Court fell in error in dismissing the application for pre-ponement. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Rahul S.Shah Vs. Jitender Gandhi and others”, 2021 AIR (SC) 2161, which has laid down a period of six months for disposal of the execution petition from the date of filing.
During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned senior counsel that subsequent to the filing of the execution petition (Annexure P-2), the decree-holder had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to seek amendment and the same was allowed on 13.07.2022. He further states that the execution petition is being contested by only defendant No.4 as the rest of the defendants have been proceeded against ex parte.
Considering the above background, particularly the fact that the amendment of the execution petition has been allowed just a few days back, this Court is not inclined to exercise the superintendence powers under Article 227 Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
