Execution proceedings must be handled expeditiously; following Supreme Court guidelines, the Executing Court is encouraged to dispose of execution petitions within six months to ensure the effective realization of decrees.

----Plaintiff/Petitioner

Versus

1. Pawan @ Pappi Tyagi Son Of Shir Ram Singh Tyagi,

Resident Of 147, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota

(Raj.)

2. Arvind Tyagi Son Of Shir Ram Singh Tyagi, Resident Of

147, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

3. Ramsingh Tyagi Son Of Unknown, (Deceased) Through

Lrs-

3/1. Smt. Shiksha Tyagi Wife Of Late Ramsingh, Resident Of

147, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

3/2. Shri Pawan Tyagi Son Of Late Ramsingh, Resident Of 147,

Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

3/3. Shri Arvind Tyagi Son Of Late Ramsingh, Resident Of 147,

Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

3/4. Smt. Manju Tyagi Daughter Of Late Ramsingh, Resident

Of 147, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

3/5. Smt. Anju Tyagi Daughter Of Late Ramsingh, Resident Of

147, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

----Defendants/Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

05/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner

with a prayer to issue direction to the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota (hereinafter is to be referred to as

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:47:04 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 12:01:46 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5450] (2 of 6) [CW-17496/2025]

‘the Executing Court’) to decide the Execution Application

No.06/2025, at the earliest.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned

counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kota issued a decree dated

21.05.2009 in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2009, the

defendants/respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of

learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (hereinafter is to be

referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), which is said to be pending.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an execution application before the

Trial Court on 06.03.2025 for restraining the

defendants/respondents from making encroachment over the land

in dispute. The defendants/respondents also filed an objection

application dated 16.07.2025 to execution proceedings under

Section 47 r/w Section 151 CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

learned Executing Court issued a decree dated 21.05.2009 in

favour of the petitioner/plaintiff but the defendants/respondents

did not comply with the direction given by the learned Executing

Court. He further submits that against the said decree, an appeal

was preferred by the defendants/respondents before the Appellate

Court. Learned Counsel further submits that despite being the said

decree in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, the

defendants/respondents tried to take possession over the disputed

land, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the aforementioned

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:47:04 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 12:01:46 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5450] (3 of 6) [CW-17496/2025]

execution application before the Executing Court to restrain the

defendants/respondents from encroaching the disputed land, but

the same has not been decided till date. He further submits that in

the circumstances aforesaid, it is a fit case where directions are

required to be issued to the Executing Court for concluding the

execution application within a stipulated period.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah

Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.; (2021) 6 SCC 418 has

provided guidelines and directions for execution proceedings. The

relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted as under:-

"42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings

shall mandatorily follow the bel