Executing courts are mandatorily required to dispose of execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing as per Supreme Court directives; courts cannot go beyond the final decree or permit dilatory tactics through repeated adjournments to frustrate the decree holder.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 09.10.2025 passed by learned Executing Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby application filed by the petitioner/Decree Holder seeking possession of suit land is declined.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the petition are that petitioner/Decree Holder filed civil suit against the respondent/Judgment Debtor for possession of suit land as mentioned in the civil suit. The civil suit was decreed in its favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006 and it was held that petitioner is the owner of suit land. Respondent filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2012. Thereafter, respondent filed Regular Second Appeal before this Court and during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal, petitioner filed execution before learned Executing Court on 18.05.2013 to get the possession of suit land in pursuance to judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006 and 10.09.2012. Regular Second Appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed by this Court on 09.11.2013 meaning thereby judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006, attained finality till this Court. Application moved by the petitioner/Decree Holder for execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006, which attained finality till this Court, for possession of the property was declined. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that request made by the petitioner/Decree Holder for issuance of warrants of possession against the respondent was declined despite the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner was decreed in its favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006 and has attained finality till this Court in RSA-620-2013 decided on 09.11.2023.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that CWP-1391-2008 regarding the same property is pending before this Court. Therefore, learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur has rightly declined the request of the petitioner for warrants of possession.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of file shows that Executing Court has gone beyond the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006, which has attained finality till this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 by relying upon pendency of CWP 1391-2008 before this Court. Petitioner filed civil suit in the year 2000 and the civil suit filed by it was decreed in its favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006. Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2012. Petitioner/Decree Holder filed execution petition in the year 2013, during the pendency of RSA-620-2006 filed by the respondent/Judgment Debtor and even the Regular Second Appeal filed by the respondent/Judgment Debtor is dismissed on 09.11.2023 by this Court, still learned Executing Court is not following the procedure for execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006, which has attained finality by this Court on 09.11.2023.

7. This Court in CM-4553-CII-2025 in CR-2181-2023 has directed all the District & Session Judges of the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T, Chandigarh to ensure strict compliance of directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others , (2021) 6 SCC 418, which reads as under:-

“39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others , (2021) 6 SCC 418, has categorically mandated that all executing courts shall dispose of execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing. Any extension beyond this period can only be granted by recording specific reasons in writing for the delay.

40. The relevant port