RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLAversusMOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KANPUR NAGAR AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 36661 of 2026

Rajesh Kumar Shukla
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kanpur Nagar
And 3 Others                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Vidya Kant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :


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

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer;

     "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
     the respondent no.1 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat to
     decide the Execution Case No. 311/74 of 2021 (Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs.
     Munnu Singh and others) arising out of judgment and award dated 23-10-
     2013 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 130 of 2011 expediously."

2. It is contended that an award was made by M.A.C.T. Kanpur Dehat on
23.10.2013 against the respondent no. 2, Munnu Singh. Respondent no. 2,
thereafter, had filed a review application which was dismissed on
20.9.2017, against which a recall application was filed which was also
dismissed. In paragraph no. 11 of writ petition it is stated that against the
judgment and award dated 23.10.2013 and review order dated 20.9.2017,
no appeal or writ petition has been preferred by respondent no. 2, Munnu
Singh. An Execution Case No. 311/74 of 2021 has been filed by petitioner
which is pending consideration. The sole prayer made in writ petition for
expeditious disposal of the said execution case.

3. 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
                                                               WRIC No. 36661 of 2026
                                    2


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
   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
                                                                                                    WRIC No. 36661 of 2026
                                                                         3


                                         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
                                         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. 311/74 of 2021 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 a certified copy of this order.

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



                                                                                            (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Shekhar




Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad