Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3244
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ganesh Ram Meena, J
Saraswati Devi – Appellant
Versus
Pawan @ Pappi Tyagi – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17496/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Kumar Sharma
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.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for the timely disposal of Execution Application No. 06/2025. The facts reveal that a decree was issued on 21.05.2009 in favor of the petitioner. Despite the decree, the respondents allegedly attempted to encroach upon the disputed land, leading the petitioner to file an execution application on 06.03.2025, which remained pending despite the lapse of over a year. The central issue was whether the Executing Court should be directed to conclude the execution proceedings within a stipulated timeframe. The Court relied upon the guidelines established by the Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors. and Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. V. Rajamani & Anr., which mandate that execution proceedings should generally be completed within six months from the date of filing. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota, to conclude/complete the proceedings of Execution Application No.06/2025, at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks expedited disposal of a long-pending execution application for a 2009 decree. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. supreme court mandates execution proceedings be completed within six months. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court directs the executing court to conclude proceedings within three months. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
----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
