RANCHI, India, Oct. 27 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 26:
1. Heard.
2. A very innocuous prayer has been made in this petition for expeditious decision on the execution petition filed by the petitioner. Obviously, there can be no objection to such a prayer, being allowed more particularly, in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided guidelines and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. Paragraph nos. 42 to 42.14 of the said judgment read as under:
"42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:
42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties.
42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.
42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of Commission report, the court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.
42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.
42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.
42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.
42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.
42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xzwI5mOPL13Ju5UdLQezZAVgOwwuMHGFfoJYRVXeDgAc&caseno=C.M.P./9212/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010281252025&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
