7 months ago
2
The Supreme Court has described arsenic “highly disappointing” and “alarming” the pendency of much than 8.82 lakh execution petitions earlier assorted courts crossed the country.
Execution petitions are pleas filed by decree holders seeking enforcement of tribunal orders passed successful civilian disputes.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal made the reflection portion reviewing compliance with its March 6 order, which had directed each High Courts to instruct civilian courts nether their jurisdiction to determine execution petitions wrong six months. The Bench had besides clarified that presiding officers would beryllium held accountable for immoderate hold successful pursuing its directive.
“The statistic which we person received are highly disappointing. The figures of the pendency of the execution petitions crossed the state are alarming. As connected date, 8,82,578 execution petitions are pending crossed the country,” the Bench said.
In the past six months since the March 6 order, a full of 3,38,685 execution petitions person been decided and disposed of, the tribunal noted.
“As observed successful our main judgment, aft the decree is passed, if it is going to instrumentality years and years to execute the decree, past it makes nary consciousness and would beryllium thing abbreviated of travesty of justice,” the Bench said successful its October 16 order.
The tribunal erstwhile again urged each High Courts to germinate a process and usher their respective territory judiciary for the effectual and expeditious disposal of pending execution petitions.
The apex court, however, noted that “unfortunately, the Karnataka High Court has failed to furnish america with the indispensable information successful this regard.” It directed the Supreme Court registry to contented a reminder to the Karnataka High Court to taxable information regarding disposal and pendency of execution petitions implicit the past six months.
“The Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka owes an mentation wherefore helium has failed to supply america with the indispensable information. Two weeks’ clip is granted to the Registrar General of the High Court to connection his mentation successful this regard,” the bid said.
The substance has been listed for further advancement connected April 10 adjacent year. The Bench said it expected implicit figures from each High Courts connected some the pendency and disposal of execution petitions.
“When this substance is notified erstwhile again connected April 10, 2026, we privation each the High Courts connected their archetypal broadside besides to furnish the indispensable accusation arsenic regards the pending execution petitions arsenic good arsenic disposal of the same,” it said.
Earlier, connected March 6, the tribunal had noted that execution petitions filed for enforcing decrees successful civilian disputes had remained pending for 3 to 4 years.
“If the execution petitions stay pending for three-four years, it defeats the precise intent of the decree,” Justice Pardiwala had observed portion penning the March 6 order.
The observations came successful a long-pending civilian quality implicit onshore betwixt 2 individuals from Tamil Nadu dating backmost to 1980.
The Bench had past directed that aft collecting data, each High Courts should contented administrative orders oregon circulars to territory courts directing that execution petitions beryllium decided wrong six months “without fail”. “Otherwise, the presiding serviceman acrophobic would beryllium answerable to the High Court connected its administrative side,” it had said, noting “long and inordinate” delays by executing courts successful deciding specified petitions.
The civilian quality earlier the Bench acrophobic a merchantability statement dated June 30, 1980, executed by Tamil Nadu nonmigratory Ayyavoo Udayar implicit a portion of land. Following a rubric dispute, Udayar filed a suit for circumstantial show successful 1986.
In 2004, the decree-holder sought a absorption for execution of the merchantability deed and transportation of possession, which was dismissed. The dismissal was challenged and acceptable speech successful 2006, but the merchantability deed remained unexecuted. In 2008, an bid for transportation of possession was passed but not carried out.
The apical tribunal held that the High Court “committed an egregious error” successful passing the impugned order.
