No More Wait For Justice – Guidelines by Supreme Court
Justice delayed is Justice Denied.
A common jargon is once the matter reaches court it will take years to decide. Correct to say that even though the bulkiest Constitution safeguards rights, we have the bulkiest pendency of cases which had tolled up to top the list of the country having the highest number of pendency in the world.
Table of Contents:
- Pending Cases for Execution
- Evolution of Judicial System
- Factual Background of Rahul S. Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi 2021
- Guidelines For Effective And Uninterrupted Executions
- Premier thematic Private Limited versus Indian Sulphacid Industries limited
- Conclusion
Pending Cases for Execution
Going further into the data there is around 11 lac pending cases for ‘execution’, execution is the last step of any proceeding which also means that even after giving the final verdict the justice is not delivered as there is consistent abuse of law and its procedure. The party against whom the verdict is passed moves to the Higher court for stay or appeal or will either introduce new facts to the suit with an intention to delay justice.
The question is how long these delays and abuse of justice will be persistent?
Evolution of Judicial System
The judicial system regulated by substantive and procedural laws which help in deciding the case. The procedural law needs amendments from time to time and it can be achieved by amendments or case laws.
The delay of justice is the most considerable affair discussed whenever a suit is instituted. Pendency of cases is indicative towards the need of reform in laws and the Supreme Court via three-judge bench in the case of Rahul S. Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi 2021, took note of difficulties faced by the litigants after execution order. The court laid down mandatory directions to end the misuse of procedural law, thereby fast disposal of all execution cases pending Courts.
Factual Background of Rahul S. Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi 2021
The facts of the case are that the owner of the disputed land executed sale deeds for portions of the property and later challenged the transactions in a declaration suit in 1987. The purchasers were barred from entering the property until the owner executed a registered partition deed in 1991. While the suit was pending, the purchasers under one of the sale deeds filed a possession suit in 1996. The purchasers also sought the transfer and mutation of the property into their names, which was denied, prompting them to file a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court ordered that the khata be relocated once the injunction suit was resolved. The City Civil Judge in Bangalore consolidated the related cases and, in 2006, dismissed the injunction suit and decreed the suit in favour of the purchasers. The decree holders then filed suits for execution in 2007, after the owners had sold the property to other purchasers (‘subsequent purchasers’) through four sale deeds between 2001 and 2004. During the execution proceedings, a portion of the property was sought to be acquired for the Bangalore Metro Project, to which the decree holders objected and sought possession. During this time, the owner filed a first appeal with the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed the appeal in 2009 and later dismissed the owners’ special leave petition in 2010. It was later discovered that while the cases were pending in the High Court, the subsequent purchasers had sought compensation for the property that was to be acquired. The High Court then ruled in a writ petition that compensation could not have been distributed to them and ordered them to deposit the amount. The subsequent purchasers filed an appeal against the order entered in the writ petition, which the Division Bench later dismissed. In 2013, the High Court ruled in another writ petition that the purchasers were entitled to transfer of khata in their names. Because the High Court’s order to deposit the compensation was not followed, contempt proceedings were initiated. The order issued in the contempt proceedings in 2013 was then challenged in the Supreme Court via a special leave petition, which was dismissed in 2014. Because the execution proceedings required parties to provide evidence of obstruction while the obstruction proceedings were pending, the owners filed criminal proceedings against the decree holders in 2016. The criminal proceedings were stayed and later quashed in 2017. Various orders of the executing court were then the subject of writ petitions and appeals, which were dealt with collectively by the High Court of Karnataka in its common order dated 16 January 2020. The High Court of Karnataka ordered, among other things, that the execution petition be heard within six months and that the judgement debtors pay the decree holders Rs. 5 lakh in costs for each execution petition. The case before the Supreme Court was an appeal filed by one of the subsequent purchasers, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
Guidelines For Effective And Uninterrupted Executions
- Where the suit is related to the delivery of possession the court has to examine the parties in relation to the role of any third party to the suit under Order 10 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C), and further exercising power of Order 11 Rule 14 ask parties to disclose and produce all the documents upon an oath which are in possession of parties and this shall be submitted along with declaration in respect of any third party interest as well.
- Where the possession of the property is not disputed and is not a relevant question of fact, the court may in its opinion appoint a commissioner to assess the description and status of the concerned property.
- After examination of parties are completed under Order 10 and for production of documents under Order XI and/or receipt of the commission report, the court shall add all the necessary parties to the suit so as to avoid any multiplicity of proceeding and initiate joinder of parties and cause of action.
- A court receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC can be appointed to monitor the status of the property for proper adjudication of the matter.
- The court shall ensure the decree is unambiguous before the decree pertaining to the delivery of possession of the property. The description mentioned should be clear and so as to have clarity of the status of the property.
- Where there is execution in case of money suit the court shall invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11 and ensure immediate execution of the decree.
- The defendant has to disclose his assets on oath where the suit is for payment of money so as to make him liable in the suit. The court may also demand security by exercising its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to ensure a satisfying decree.
- The court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of CPC shall not issue a notion on request or application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. The court shall further refrain from entering any application which has been already been considered. By the court during the adjudication of suit or any other issue which otherwise could have been raised.
- Evidence shall be rare and in exceptional cases be allowed and not generally. Where in case the question of fact was not decided by making use of other methods like the appointment of the commissioner or electronic evidence like photographs and video with an affidavit under Section 65B Indian evidence act.
- The Court finds objection, claim, or resistance to be frivolous or mala fide may resort to Rule 98 Sub-rule (2) of Order 21 and may grant compensatory costs as per Section 35A.
- The term Judgement debtor or another person in trust for him or his behalf under Section 60 of CPC should be read liberally to incorporate other person having the ability to derive share profit or property.
- The execution proceedings shall be disposed of within 6 months by the executing court and the limitation shall start from the date of filing which may be extended on recording reason in writing.
- Where the court is satisfied that it seems impossible to execute a decree without police assistance, the court may direct the concerned Police station to provide police assistance to officials who have working for the execution of the decree. And where there is an offense against public servant while the discharge of his duties the same shall be dealt stringently as per law.
- There should be proper training and judicial academies shall ensure training through appropriate mediums to the court staff executing warrants and carrying attachments and sale or any other duties for executing order issued by the court.
- The High Court is directed to update all the rights relating to the execution of decrees by exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 122 CPC within one year from the date of the present order. The rules shall be in concord with provisions of CPC.
The Supreme Court in the present case noted that there is a large number of pendency in execution proceedings. The unsuccessful and frivolous attempts of litigants to delay the proceeding by putting spurious objections and introducing third parties at the later stages has not only affected the individual but society at large as it takes a longer time for other cases to get justice. It is also believed that justice delayed is justice denied and to impart justice law must be sufficient to stop any search act which hinders the process of delivering justice.
The Supreme Court its various judgments have has quoted ‘ procedural law is the handmaid of Justice’, this means that in order to impart justice procedural law can be amended respectively.
In Premier thematic Private Limited versus Indian Sulphacid Industries limited, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that it is a well-settled law that “procedural law are handmade and not the mistress the lubricant and not the resistant in the administration of Justice”. While delivering any judgment the code shall consider the application of provision so as to impart justice.
CONCLUSION
The pendency of cases in Indian courts is not hidden. Complaints of litigants about delayed justice should also be seen the other way around, where the litigants themselves enter into such activities which delay justice. The present case is a very prominent example of misuse of procedural laws. The guidelines of the Supreme Court in the present case are directing towards a change and evolution of the use of procedural laws.
There may be more stringent and separate laws for dealing with execution matters as a lot of hindrances are faced during this process. Present laws and regulations are very well drilling with the present situation, still, there can be the introduction of new laws to regulate the actions of people.