DNA Legal Tips: Reducing the ‘Tareeks’ in Execution Proceedings - A commendable effort by the Supreme Court

We have all heard the famous line from the movie Damini in which Sunny Deol echoes the famous dialogue “Tareek Pe Tareek”. This dialogue is a general reflection of public perception of the justice delivery system in India. It highlights an underlying issue of pendency of cases and delay. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), a real time dashboard run by the National Informatics Center (NIC), highlights that currently there are 3,89,41,148 cases pending in the lower judiciary. Among them 1,03,81,615 are civil cases and the remaining are criminal cases. These numbers create a huge backlog of cases and prevent access to justice. It also deters people to proactively engage or benefit from the justice system.

Among the issues of pendency in civil litigation, a central issue relates to execution of a decree, which is the process of getting the decree enforced. Once an individual wins a case in the Court, the next step is to get the decree enforced to avail the real-life/actual benefits of winning the case. Execution was meant to be a simple procedure that allows people to enjoy the benefits of a decree.

Despite being a simple procedure, it contributes heavily towards increasing the pendency of civil cases and reducing access to justice. The current NJDG data suggests that there are 14,19,298 execution petitions pending in the Subordinate judiciary. This when compounded with the numbers in the higher judiciary, the bulwark pendency slows the entire justice delivery efficiency. Additionally, the majority of these execution petitions remain pending for decades. These staggering numbers and the time taken for finality often nullifies any headway made by a litigant in winning a case.

The issue of pendency of execution has been of concern for the judiciary since colonial times. In 1871, in the case of General manager of Raj Darbhanga v Maharaja Coomar Rajput it was highlighted that the actual difficulty of a litigant begins when he has obtained a decree. This concern was again echoed in the 2008 case of Shub Karan Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna. The condition of such a litigant is like a thirsty individual standing at the shore of the sea. Despite all the water in front of him, the salty water always keeps the throat dry.

To address this issue of pendency of execution petitions, a three-judge bench of  the  Supreme Court in March 2021 headed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice Shri Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice Shri Nageshwar Rao and Justice Shri Ravindra Bhat in the case of Rahul K Shah v Jitendra  Kumar Shah passed guidelines to reform the execution procedure and to expedite the execution proceedings. It directed all the Courts to conclude the execution proceedings within 6 months unless there was a compelling reason otherwise. This will drastically increase the disposal of execution petitions and will enable quick disposal of the same. It instructed the Courts to allow new evidence at the execution stage only in exceptional and rare cases. It also creatively interpreted different provisions concerning execution given under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) in the following manner:

1. Courts should not send notice for execution in a mechanical manner under Section 47, CPC which enlists the reasons under which an execution petition can be challenged.
2. It propelled the appointment of a Court Commissioner and a Court Receiver whenever required. These are the officers of the courts who ensure administration of justice in an efficient and effective manner on issues that require Court’s vigilance.
3. It allowed for a liberal interpretation of the term judgement debtor or another person in case of attachment of property under section 60 of CPC. It also instructed the judicial academy to create manuals to train personnel who would carry out attachment. Attachment is a process which allows Courts to use a person’s asset for effective discharge of a debt decree that the judgement debtor is otherwise unable to discharge.
4. It affirmed the use of Order XXI Rule 11 to enable execution of decree of payment of money on oral application.
5. Courts enabled granting compensatory cost and resort to Rule 98(2) of Order XXI, CPC whenever there is a frivolous and mala fide objection or resistance in the claim.