AMIT GUPTAversusTARVINDAR SINGH JAUHAR AND 10 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12430 of 2026

Amit Gupta
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

Tarvindar Singh Jauhar And 10 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                            :    Prateek Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)                            :

Court No. - 9
                HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. The suit filed by the plaintiff-decree holder was decreed on 10.09.1998,
against which, a civil appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondent
which was dismissed on 07.08.2019, against which, a second appeal was
preferred before this Court which was dismissed on 09.01.2020.

2. In paragraph no.8 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the order
passed in the second appeal has not been challenged further. In the
meantime, Execution Case No.13 of 2023 has been filed, which is pending
consideration. The sole prayer made in the writ petition is for early decision
in the said case.

3. 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:-

     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.

     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:
                                                          A227 No. 12430 of 2026
                              2


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

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.***

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.

***

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.

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.

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.

***

42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings
                                                                                                   A227 No. 12430 of 2026
                                                                       3


                                          within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only
                                          by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

                                                                                                               ***

                                                                                                (Emphasis supplied)

                                    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.

                                    4. In view of the said fact, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed
                                    with the Execution Case No.13 of 2023 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.

                                    5. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.



                                                                                            (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    SK Goswami




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