Constitution of India: Arts. 142, 141 and 144 – Delay in the execution proceedings and abuse of process of execution court – Frivolous attempts by unsuccessful litigants to putting up spurious objections and setting up third parties, to object, delay and obstruct the execution of a decree – Urgent need to reduce the delay – In view thereof, to avoid controversies and multiple issues emanating from the rights claimed by third parties, the Court must play an active role in deciding all such related issues to the subject matter during adjudication of the suit itself and ensure that a clear, unambiguous, and executable decree is passed in any suit – Thus, in larger public interest to subserve the process of justice, issuance of few mandatory directions to all courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings – Also issuance of directions to all the High Courts to reconsider and update all rules relating to execution of decrees, made under exercise of its powers u/Art. 227 and s. 122 CPC within stipulated period –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord, XXI r. 2, 11, 22, 30 to 36, 97, 98, 99, ss. 47, 51. The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga v.
Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing (1871–72) 14
Moore’s I. A. 605; Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna (2009) 9 SCC 689 : [2009] 14 SCR 40; Ghan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar Sinha AIR 1991 SC 2251 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR
119 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.