In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has issued strict directives to ensure that execution petitions are disposed of within six months, holding presiding officers accountable for any delays.

The judgment, delivered in Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., underscores the need for expeditious execution proceedings and mandates all High Courts to monitor and enforce compliance.

SC Orders High Courts To Monitor Pending Execution Petitions

A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal has directed all High Courts across India to collect data on pending execution petitions in their district judiciary.

Based on this data, High Courts are required to issue administrative orders ensuring that execution petitions are decided within six months.

The Apex Court emphasized that failure to comply with this directive would make the concerned presiding officer answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.

Case Background: Four-Decade-Long Legal Battle Over Property

The dispute originated in 1980 when Ayyavoo Udayar, the father of the appellants, entered into an agreement to sell a property to the respondents.

After paying the earnest money, the balance amount was due by November 15, 1980. However, the vendors failed to execute the Sale Deed, leading to a specific performance suit in 1983.

Timeline of Legal Proceedings:

• 1986: The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellants.
• 2004: The Madras High Court, upon appeal, directed the appellants to deposit an additional amount.
• 2007: The Sale Deed was executed, but legal hurdles persisted.
• Subsequent Years: The sons of the vendors’ sister claimed ownership and filed an application under Section 47 CPC, asserting they weren’t served notice of the execution proceedings.
• ASJ & High Court Orders: The ASJ allowed their application, and the High Court upheld it, prompting the appellants to file revision petitions, which were later dismissed.
• Supreme Court Appeal: The appellants challenged these rulings in the Supreme Court, which found material irregularities in the High Court’s decision.

Supreme Court’s Observations & Ruling

The Supreme Court rebuked the High Court’s findings, stating that the rejection of amendments to the execution petition was erroneous.

The Court emphasized that matters concerning the right, title, or interest in a decretal property must be directly related to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree under Section 47 CPC.

The Apex Court ordered that:

1. High Courts must collect and forward execution petition data to the Supreme Court Registry.
2. The Executing Courts must ensure vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the appellants, using police assistance if necessary.
3. The entire execution process must be completed within two months from the date of judgment.

The ruling reinstates the principle that litigants must not suffer due to delays in execution proceedings. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeals, setting aside the Madras High Court’s judgment.

Case Details

• Case Name: Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc.
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 329
• Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal
• Appellants’ Counsel: Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mrinal Kanwar
• Respondents’ Counsel: Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, AORs Rahul Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Advocate Raji Gururaj

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…