Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed the executing court to take an execution petition to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 30th November, 2025. The Bench disposed of a civil miscellaneous petition, noting that the petitioner had sought only the expeditious disposal of its execution petition. The Court held that such a prayer could not be objected to, particularly in light of established guidelines by the Supreme Court of India.

The matter before the High Court arose from a petition filed by M/s. R.K. Construction Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The registered office of the company is located at Reyaz Manzil, R.K. Nagar, F.C.I. Road, Phulwari Sharif, Patna, Bihar. The company was represented through its director, Mr. Siraj Ahmed, aged about 40 years, son of Late Riyaz Ahmed Khan, resident of Riyaz Nagar, Phulwari Sharif, Patna.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Arbitration Act — Delivery of Award to Govt Official Unconnected With Case Not Valid Service on State Under S.31(5)

The petition was instituted against the State of Jharkhand through its Chief Engineer, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Water Resources Department, Icha-Galudih Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District Seraikela Kharsawan, and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Water Resources Department, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Galudih, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

The petition sought an order from the High Court for the expeditious disposal of an execution petition filed by the petitioner. The central grievance was that the execution petition had not been decided within a reasonable time frame, causing delay in the realization of the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner prayed that the execution petition be disposed of at the earliest.

During the hearing, the Court recorded that the prayer was limited to seeking a direction for expeditious disposal and not for adjudication on merits. The Court further noted that such a prayer could not be objected to. In support of its position, the Court referred to judicial precedents of the Supreme Court governing the conduct and expeditious disposal of execution proceedings.

The Bench first referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418. The Court quoted paragraph 42 of the said judgment, wherein the Supreme Court laid down mandatory directions for all courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings. These included directions relating to examination of parties under Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), production of documents under Order 11, joinder of necessary parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, appointment of a Court Receiver under Order 40, clarity in decrees for delivery of possession, resort to immediate execution in money suits under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, and disposal of execution proceedings within six months, among other provisions.

The Bench then referred to the judgment in M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Private Limited vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. and Another, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 534. In that case, the Supreme Court held that arbitration awards must be executed without delay, failing which the purpose and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, would be frustrated.

The Court also cited the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. V. Rajamani and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 507. In that case, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts across the country to collect information from their respective district judiciary regarding the pendency of execution petitions. The Supreme Court further directed that once the data was collected, the High Courts should issue administrative orders or circulars directing the district judiciary to ensure disposal of execution petitions within a period of six months without fail. It was further ordered that presiding officers of district courts would be answerable to their respective High Courts if execution petitions were not disposed of within the stipulated period.

Thus, the petitioner relied on established judicial precedents to support its plea for expeditious disposal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, considered that the relief sought was narrow and reasonable. The Court noted that the directions issued by the Supreme Court left no scope for delay in execution proceedings, which are to be treated with urgency. Consequently, the High Court proceeded to dispose of the petition with specific directions.

The Court recorded that the prayer was limited to the expeditious disposal of the execution petition. It stated: “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.”

The Court then set out in detail the mandatory directions contained in paragraph 42 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahul S. Shah. It quoted: “All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions.” Thereafter, the Court reproduced sub-paragraphs 42.1 to 42.14 of the Supreme Court’s decision, covering aspects such as examination of parties under Order 10 CPC, appointment of Commissioners, joinder of parties, appointment of Court Receivers, clarity in decrees, immediate execution in money suits, disclosure of assets by defendants, restrictions on third-party applications, exceptional circumstances for taking evidence in execution proceedings, imposition of costs for frivolous objections, liberal interpretation of Section 60 CPC, disposal of execution petitions within six months, police assistance for execution, and training of court personnel through Judicial Academies.

After reproducing the above, the Court referred to the decision in M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Private Limited vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. It stated: “In the case of M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Private Limited vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 534, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Arbitration Award must be executed without delay, otherwise purpose and object of the 1996 Act (Arbitration and Conciliation Act) as well as Commercial Courts Act, 2015 will be frustrated.”

The Court further relied on Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. and Others vs. V. Rajamani and Another. It recorded: “In the case of Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. and Others vs. V. Rajamani and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in fact, directed as follows: ‘In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports.’”

Also Read: Jharkhand High Court | Date of Birth Corrections Cannot Be Claimed After Decades of Service | Employees Who Slept Over Rights Cannot Seek Relief Despite Matric Certificates

The Court noted the additional direction from the Supreme Court in paragraph 76 of the said judgment: “Registry is directed to forward one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts at the earliest.”

The Court directed: “Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the Executing Court to take the execution petition to its logical end as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 30th November, 2025.”

The Court further ordered: “Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications(s), if any, is also disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. M.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate; Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate

Case Title: M/s. R.K. Construction Private Limited vs. State of Jharkhand and Another

Neutral Citation:  2025: JHHC:25133-DB

Case Number: C.M.P. No. 397 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Rajesh Shankar