[2026:RJ-JP:10683]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20135/2025 Rajendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Chandrabhan Yadav, R/o Gram Maanjiri Khola, At Present R/o Rath Nagar, Behror Road, Alwar.

301001.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar Through Its Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Near Bhagat Singh Circle, Alwar.

2. Additional Administrative Officer, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Alwar DF Collectorate Premises Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mahima Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. Manu Bhargav For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

13/03/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to direct the District Consumer Forum to decide the execution petition filed by him for execution of the order dated

13.07.2017, at the earliest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at some length, made a limited prayer that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the respondents authorities are directed to decide his execution petition, at the earliest.

3. Heard.

4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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 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 that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.

42.6. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.

42.8. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third- arty claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.

42.9. The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases wh