SUSHEEL KUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13022 of 2026

Susheel Kumar Mishra
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   Mahesh Sharma, Suraj Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :   C.S.C.

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

1. The matter of the petitioner was referred to the arbitration, wherein, an
award was made. Against which, an application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed, which was decided on
15.01.2008. Against which, an appeal was preferred under Section 37
which was decided on 19.01.2024. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed an
execution case under Section 36 of the Act on 23.10.2024 which has been
registered as Execution Case No. 27/70 of 2024, which is pending
consideration. The sole prayer made is for expediting the said execution
case.

2. Recently, the Apex Court, on 06.03.2025, in Periyammal vs.
Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 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 had held that the
execution proceedings should be concluded expeditiously. 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:


   42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily
                                                             A227 No. 13022 of 2026
                                 2


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 within six
months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording
                                                                                                    A227 No. 13022 of 2026
                                                                        3


                                         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."


                                    3. In view of the said fact, the Executing Court is hereby directed to
                                    proceed with the Execution Case No. 27/70 of 2024. and decide the same
                                    in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of four
                                    months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

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



                                                                                           (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    A. V. Singh




Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad