Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 1213
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 4029 of 2009 (O&M)
M/s Pirthi Chand Kaushal
v.
M/s Om Parkash, Ramesh Kumar Rice Mills, Sahnewal & Ors.
{Decided on 22/07/2009}
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Execution Proceeding--Delay in disposal--Directions by High Court--Execution application pending for last five years to be disposed of by 24.12.2009
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure--Execution Proceeding--Directions for time bound disposal of execution application--Inordinate long pendency of execution in a suit for recovery--Executing Court directed to dispose of execution application by 31.8.2009.--Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
(B) Execution Proceeding--Delay in disposal of execution application--Directions by High Court--Judicial Officers in State of Punjab and Haryana mandated to furnish particulars in respect of pending execution applications--Execution application pending for last five years to be disposed of by 24.12.2009--Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
S.D. Anand, J.:-
C.M. No. 16761-CII of 2009
Allowed, as prayed for.
C.R. No. 4029 of 2009
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content and interests of justice would be served, if a direction is issued to the learned Executing Court for a time-bound disposal of the execution application, pending consideration at the hands of the Executing Court since 1990.
2. A perusal of the averments made in the course of the present petition make startling and revelatory reading. The impugned execution (No.67 dated 14.06.1990) was filed by the petitioner to execute the (judgment and) decree dated 30.05.1990, for the recovery of Rs.14,68,466.80 paise and the awarded interest thereupon.
3. The petitioner has reproduced interim orders for the period 12.08.2006 to 13.06.2009. Orders dated 12.08.2006, 18.08.2006 and27.09.2006 are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-
“Present: Counsel for the parties.
Reply not filed. Now be filed on 18.8.06.
Sd/- S.S.Dhaliwal, CJ(SD)
12.08.2006
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC is to be traced from original file. Now be traced upto 2.9.06.
Sd/- CJ(SD)/18.8.06
Present : As above.
Application traced. Now for consideration to come upon 28.10.06.
Sd/- CJ(SD)/27.09.2006"
4. There is a precise averment in the petition that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. had been filed by respondents No. 8 and 9 herein on 03.01.2006 and reply thereto was filed by the petitioner herein (and decree holder therein) on 21.01.2006 and that application too is pending consideration ever since then.
5. In spite thereof, the order dated 12.08.2006 notices that the reply is yet to be filed. The order dated 18.08.2006 notices that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC “is to be traced from original file”. Order dated 02.09.2006 further notices that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was yet to be traced. The matter was adjourned to 28.09.2006. The interim order recorded by the learned Executing Court on that date notices that the application has been traced out and the matter was adjourned to 28.10.2006 “for consideration”. Thereafter, the matter was repeatedly adjourned “for consideration” on 12.02.2007, 19.02.2007, 24.02.2007, 01.03.2007, 07.03.2007, 13.03.2007, 21.03.2007, 30.03.2007, 10.04.2007, 18.04.2007, 02.05.2007, 23.05.2007, 24.07.2007, 18.08.2007, 20.09.2007, 06.10.2007, 08.11.2007, 07.12.2007, 16.02.2008, 29.03.2008, 19.04.2008, 26.04.2008, 13.05.2008, 13.06.2008, 26.07.2008, 27.08.2008, 04.10.2008, 08.11.2008, 06.12.2008, 03.01.2009, 17.01.2009, 31.01.2009, 07.02.2009, 02.03.2009, 17.03.2009, 28.03.2009, 15.04.2009, 09.05.2009, 11.05.2009, 14.05.2009, 23.05.2009, 28.05.2009, 02.06.2009 and 13.06.2009. An absolutely similar order was duplicated on each date of hearing. In the meantime, as many as three Presiding Officers changed (this observation is applicable only to the proceedings taken by the learned Executing Court during the period 12.08.2006 to 13.06.2009.
6. The inordinate long pendency of an execution application in a suit for the recovery makes a dismal reading. In fact, it can safely be taken to be a reflection on the efficacy of the system of administration of justice under the charge of the Executing Court.
7. In view of the fact that the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has limited the prayer to the above indicated extent, I find it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition in limine.
8. The petition shall stand disposed of in limine accordingly with a direction to the learned Executing Court to dispose of the execution application by 31.08.2009.
9. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned District Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned period.
10. The obtaining of an executable decree (not hedged by any
