Supreme Court Mandates Six-Month Deadline for Execution Proceedings: A Landmark Step Towards Judicial Accountability, Making Courts Liable for Delays

On 6th of March, the apex court of India passed a landmark decision mandating disposal of execution proceedings within a period of six months. The court has emphasised that prolonged execution proceedings defeat the very purpose of expedited litigation leaving decree holders high and dry. Furthermore this is the first time when the Indian judiciary has provided accountability to judicial officers or judges. This is not the first time that supreme court has issued directions to expedite litigation proceedings in India but the first time when the court may be held liable if there is no timely disposal. Additionaly, the supreme court has directed all high courts to review the status/stage of all execution proceedings pending in their respective subordinate courts. The high courts have been ordered to proceed with issuance of an administrative order or circular ensuring that execution petitions pending in district judiciary are disposed in six months failing which the Presiding Officer (PO) will be answerable.

Execution proceedings is the final stage of any civil litigation whereby the executing enforces the decree of the court. The reasoning behind execution proceedings is to ensure that the decision of the court is enforced and party who has been awarded the benefit receives it. The major difference between a suit and an execution proceeding is that in the former the court determines the rights and liabilities of parties in the latter the court enforces them. As of May 5, 2022, 70,267 execution cases were pending out of 1,00,13,029 total pending cases in the state of Uttar Pradesh. 13,342 execution cases have been pending for more than 10 years. Particularly from Allahabad District: 5,149 execution cases were analysed (filed between 2000-2020). 42% cases disposed of, 58% still pending (as of March 2020).

In the proceedings of an execution petition, the executing court has to enforce the judgement already given. During this time, the judgement debtor may raise objections to the proceedings. The court in 6th March judgement narrowed down the scope of such objections in order to expedite the proceedings. In the process of execution, two parts of Civil Procedure Code are most relevant. Firstly Section 47 of CPC which limits the kind of questions and objections that may arise between the parties regarding the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, which must be determined by the executing court, not in a separate suit. In the regard of Section 47, the court held that the issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the adjudication of the original suit cannot be adjudicated by the executing court as this can undermine the decree itself. Second is Rule 97-102 under Order XXI. Rule 97 deals with resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. The court in the same execution proceeding can decide the rights of third party like tenants or claimants. Rules 98-101 provide for adjudication of claims and objections. In this very judgement, the court has limited the factual inquiry to be done by courts in order to expedite the proceedings. Rule 102 prevents tenants and licensees from filing frivolous objections if they were inducted by the judgment-debtor after the decree. The March 6 ruling emphasized strict enforcement of Rule 102 to prevent such tactics

The Supreme Court in the landmark judgement marks a significant shift in execution proceedings emphasising the need for judicial accountability. For the first time in history of Indian judiciary, accountability has been given to Judicial Officers. Contrary to previous directions which were not well followed, this very direction is different since court has set a seven month compliance deadline after which the apex court will review the situation again. The apex court through this judgement sends a message that Justice delayed is denied. A decree which is unexecuted is no justice at all. If judgements are not executed quickly then the very purpose of litigation is defeated.

Case: Civil Appeal 3640-3642 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8490-8492 of 2020.(SC)

         Judgement dated 6.3.25 by a division bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mithal