The court endorsed that execution proceedings require a distinct approach focused on ensuring timely justice, emphasizing delay condonation in favor of substantial rights over technicalities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Execution proceedings - Orders challenged regarding condonation of delay in filing substitution application after the death of decree holder - Court allowed legal heirs to substitute in execution proceedings despite delay, emphasizing that technical considerations should not impede substantial justice, referencing multiple court rulings on delay and execution dynamics. (Paras 14, 24, 35)

(B) Execution of decrees - Emphasizes the importance of enabling timely justice through execution, highlighting that execution proceedings deserve a different approach than original proceedings due to the need for justice to be realized post-decree. (Paras 34, 36)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought execution of a decree against the petitioner, who set aside the decree subject to deposit of Rs. 75,000/-, which was not fulfilled. The respondent's legal heirs applied for substitution after the respondent's death, and delays were condoned by the Civil Judge.

Findings of Court:
The Civil Judge, allowing substitution despite delays, affirmed that knowledge of proceedings and substantive justice supersede technical delays.

Issues: Whether the legal heirs of the deceased were aware of the execution proceedings in time to file for substitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the original court did not err in condoning the delay, stressing that execution processes must support justice and recognizing the different treatment required for execution as opposed to trial stages.

Result: Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. details regarding orders and case history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. condonation of delay and its implications. (Para 8 , 14 , 17)
3. legal heirs substituting in proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. grounds for review of prior orders. (Para 15 , 19 , 24)
5. arguments contesting the delay condonation. (Para 20 , 22 , 28)
6. judicial reluctance to interfere with discretion. (Para 25 , 27 , 29)
7. execution of decrees and judicial implications. (Para 34 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails orders dated 7th December 2018 and 29th March 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge in Ex. 96232/2016 (Tara Devi v. Madan Lal Suryawanshi).

2. The impugned orders have come to be passed in proceedings initiated by the respondent, seeking execution of a judgment and decree dated 25th May 2011. Though it is not strictly relevant for the purposes of the present petition, it may be noted that the operation of the said judgment and decree dated 25th May 2011 was stayed by the learned Civil Judge on 18th September 2015, and continued to remain stayed till 29th March 2022, on which date the impugned order came to be passed.

3. Consequent on the passing of the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has directed issuance of warrants of attachment against the movable property of the petitioner. That, however, is not the issue in controversy in the present case.

4. The judgment and decree dated 25th May 2011, having been passed ex-parte, was set aside on an application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, by the learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 18th September 2015, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of FDR before the learned trial Court.

5. The petitioner assailed the order dated 18th September, 2015, to the extent the order required the petitioner to furnish an FDR for Rs. 75,000/-, before this Court by way of CM(M) 18/2016 (Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi).

6. During the pendency of the said CM(M) 18/2016, Tara Devi expired on 25th March 2016. On 11th August 2016, when the matter was next listed before a coordinate Bench of this Court, the following order was passed:

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CM(M) 18/2016 & CM NO.938/2016

MADANLAL SURYAWANSHI .. ... Petitioner

Through Petitioner in person

versus

TARADEVI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Shekhar Kumar, LR for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

11.08.2016

Respondent is stated to have expired on 25.3.2016. Learned counsel for the respondent to place on record a list of legal heirs of the respondent to enable filing of the application to bring on record the Legal Heirs of the deceased respondent.

List on 18.11.2016.

AUGUST 11, 2016 JAYANT NATH, J.

N"

7. Subsequently, vide order dated 12th February 2018, a coordinate bench of this Court dismissed CM(M) 18/2016. Resultantly, the order dated 18th September 2015 whereby the judgment and decree dated 25th May 2011 was set aside subject to deposit of Rs. 75,000/- by the petitioner by way of FDR, stood revived.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000/- was not deposited by the petitioner, as a result of which the setting aside, by the order dated 18th September 2015, of the judgment and decree dated 25th May 2011 never came into effect and, therefore, the judgment and decree dated 25th May 2011 became executable.

9. It is in these circumstances that Execution 96232/2016 was again prosecuted by the respondent.

10. Tara Devi, the decree holder, expired on 25th March 2016. She was survived by her son and two daughters as her only legal heirs.

11. The aforesaid legal heirs filed an application, for being substituted in execution proceedings under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The application was accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay in filing the su