Execution Courts must prioritize timely disposal of execution petitions as per Supreme Court guidelines to uphold judicial efficiency and integrity.

The Court made the following Order:

B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the inaction of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram in not disposing E.P No.65 of 2023 in O.S.No.265 of 2011.

2. The execution petition was filed under Order XXIV rule 8 (3) C.P.C. The execution petition was coming for filing counter, but as no counter was filed, on 05.12.2024, the execution Court gave an opportunity to file counter by recording that, counter is treated as Nil. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time for hearing on 09.01.2025, 23.01.2025, 17.02.2025, 10.03.2025, 17.04.2025, 21.04.2025, 29.04.2025, 16.05.2025, 09.07.2025, 18.07.2025, 12.08.2025, 28.08.2025, 09.10.2025, 28.10.2025, 27.11.2025.

3. In the light of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the execution Court has not followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Periyamma (Dead) Through L.Rs & Others Vs. V.Raja Mani & Another etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025 and the instructions of this High Court vide circular No.4 of 2025, ROC.No.208/SO/2025 dated 28.04.2025. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent / J.Dr. and the counsel for the J.Dr before the execution Court, no appearance has been made.

Circular No.04 / 2025 dated 28.04.2025 vide ROC.No.208 /SO / 2025 is as follows:

“ The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment observed inter alia as under:

“..........................................................................................

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 excercise 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.

42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.

42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of Commission report, the court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.

42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.

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.

42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application

42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 C.P.C, demand security to ensure