Summary of Circular No. 04/2025
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh (ROC.No.208/SO/2025)
Date: April 28, 2025
Core Mandate
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has directed all Judicial Officers in the state to decide and dispose of pending Execution Petitions (EPs) within a strict timeframe of six months from their date of filing. Extensions are permitted only under exceptional circumstances and must be justified by recording reasons in writing.
Background and Legal Precedent
The directive comes in response to significant backlog issues and directly complies with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's judgment dated March 6, 2025 (Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025). The Supreme Court highlighted nationwide delays in execution proceedings and reiterated the mandatory guidelines established in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors.
Key Operational Guidelines
The circular highlights specific procedural directives from the Supreme Court to streamline executions:
Property & Possession Suits: Courts must actively examine parties regarding third-party interests (under Order 10) and compel document disclosures (under Order 11, Rule 14). Ambiguity in decrees must be eliminated before issuance.
Money Suits: Courts should immediately resort to oral applications for executing money decrees (Order 21, Rule 11) and can demand a disclosure of assets/security from the defendant before settling issues.
Evidentiary Limits: Execution courts must not mechanically issue notices to third-party claimants. Gathering new evidence should be limited to rare and exceptional cases; instead, courts should utilize Commissioners or electronic materials (video/photos).
Frivolous Objections: Frivolous or mala fide resistance must be penalized using compensatory costs (Section 35-A) and appropriate CPC provisions.
Enforcement Assistance: Courts may direct local police stations to provide necessary assistance to officials executing a decree.
Administrative Accountability
Prioritization: Unit Heads must ensure their judicial officers streamline processes and prioritize older, long-pending execution matters.
Consequences of Non-Compliance: The circular explicitly warns that any Presiding Officer who fails to comply with these directions will be held personally accountable to the High Court on the administrative side.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ROC.No.208/SO/2025 Date: 28.04.2025
CIRCULAR NO. o4/2025
Sub: High Court of Andhra Pradesh - Judgment dated
06.03.2025 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 -Disposal of execution
petitions by the Executing Courts within six months -
Certain instructions - Issued -R eg.
Ref: Judgment dated 06.03.2025 of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025.
***
The attention of all the Unit Heads of District Judiciary in Andhra
Pradesh is invited to the Judgment dated 06.03.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos.
3640-3642 of 2025 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed long and inordinate delay across the country in
deciding the Execution Petitions by the Executing Courts and directed for
disposal of the same within six months.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment observed inter
alia as under:
11
73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S.
Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines
and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
below:
"42.
42.1.
42.2.
All courts dealing with suits and execution
proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below
mentioned directions:
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.
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.
42.9.
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.
The court should allow taking of evidence during
the execution proceedings only in exceptional and
rare cases where the question of fact could not be
decided by resorting to any other expeditious
method like appointment of Commissioner or
calling for electronic materials including
photographs or video with affidavits.
42.10 The court must in appropriate cases where it finds
the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous
or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of
Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in
accordance with Section 35-А.
42.11 Under Section 60 CPC the term "... in name of the
judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for
him or on his behalf" should be read liberally to
incorporate any other person from whom he may
have the ability to derive share, profit or property.
74.
42.12 The executing court must dispose of the execution
proceedings within six months from the date of
filing, which may be extended only by recording
reasons in writing for such delay.
42.13 The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact
that it is not possible to execute the decree without
police assistance, direct the police station
concerned to provide police assistance to such
officials who are working towards execution of the
decree. Further, in case an offence against the
public servant while discharging his duties is
brought to the knowledge of the court, the same
must be dealt with stringently in accordance with
law.
42.14 The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and
ensure continuous training through appropriate
mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the
warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and
any other official duties for executing orders issued
by the executing courts."
(Emphasis supplied)
The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of
Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution
proceedings to be completed within six months from the
date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its
order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare
Society & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of
2022."
In view of significant pendency of Execution Petitions in Executing
Courts in Andhra Pradesh and in compliance with the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the Unit Heads of District Judiciary in
Andhra Pradesh are hereby directed to instruct all the Judicial Officers
dealing with the Execution Petitions in their respective units to ensure that
the execution petitions pending shall be decided and disposed of within a
period of six months without fail.
It is imperative that concerted efforts be made to streamline
processes, prioritize old and long pending matters, and adhere strictly to
the timelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It is made clear in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that in the event of failure to comply above directions, the concerned
Presiding Officer is responsible to the High court on administrative side.
yusBa Sathi
REGISTRAR GENERAL
To
1. All the Registrars in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
2. All the Unit Heads in the State of Andhra Pradesh (with a request to circulate
the same to all the Judicial Officers in their respective units).
3. All the Presiding Officers of Labour Courts/Tribunals in Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Registrar (IT cum CPC), High Court of Andhra Pradesh (with a request to
place the circular in the official website of the High Court).
No comments:
Post a Comment