JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the Executing Court at Dhuri to decide Execution Application No.91 of 2019 titled as ' Vinod Kumar v. Balwant Ram ' in a time bound manner in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 SCC 418.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a rent petition seeking eviction of the respondent from a residential property situated in Ward No.5, Park Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur (fully described in the eviction petition). The same was allowed vide judgment dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure P-2). An appeal was preferred by the respondent but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide judgment dated 14.09.2022. During the pendency of the appeal, an application had been filed by the petitioner seeking mesne profits from the respondent. Rs.1500/- per month were assessed as mesne profits and a direction was issued to the respondent to pay the mesne profits along with arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order i.e. 20.04.2019. However, neither any rent nor any mesne profits had been paid since the year 2011. An execution petition was preferred in July 2019, but the same has not been decided as yet. The prayer in the present petition is to issue directions to the Executing Court to dispose of the execution petition expeditiously in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (supra). Learned counsel has also referred to the interlocutory orders which are on record as Annexure P-5 to support his arguments.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with appeals arising out of a common judgment of the Karnataka High Court vide which several writ petitions had been dismissed. There was a chequered history wherein the procedural provisions had been constantly abused by the other side. While examining the matter, a slew of directions were issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court expressed its dismay over the manner in which execution petitions are being dealt with by the Executing Courts. The directions which the Hon'ble Apex Court issued were as under:-

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 X in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI 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 X or production of documents under Order XI 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 XL Rule 1 of 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 th