Punjab & Haryana High Court | Failure of Judges and Authorities to Complete Execution Within Six Months Under CPC and Supreme Court Mandate May Invite Contempt
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sudeepthi Sharma directed the disposal of long-pending execution proceedings within a period of two months on a day-to-day basis, after noting repeated delays extending over nearly a decade. The Court held that despite the dismissal of the State’s appeal in 2017, the decree in favor of the petitioner had not been executed. The Court further ordered that no further extension of time shall be granted in the matter and issued directions to the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, to ensure strict compliance of Supreme Court precedent mandating disposal of executions within six months. Copies of the order were directed to be circulated to all District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, as well as the Chief Secretary, Punjab.
The matter originated from a civil suit for mandatory injunction to make payment of compensation to the plaintiff after acquiring the suit land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. The Trial Court on 13.08.2014 decreed the suit by directing the defendants to pay compensation within six months, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover possession of the suit land. The judgment attained finality when the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 28.11.2016 and subsequently by the High Court on 02.08.2017 in RSA-3843-2017.
The decree-holder filed execution proceedings in 2015, but despite repeated attempts, the execution remained pending. The Executing Court issued warrants of possession, but these returned unexecuted with reports citing police unavailability and disputes over property lists. The decree-holder then filed applications under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, while judgment debtors filed objections for de-attachment of land. Adjournments followed, and fresh warrants were repeatedly issued without execution. The Executing Court also recorded reports that the land included public roads and houses, and directed initiation of acquisition proceedings.
Applications for extension of time were filed before the High Court by successive Civil Judges, beginning with an application dated 26.09.2023. Grounds cited included non-availability of police assistance, pending replies by government pleaders, and third-party objections. The High Court, though critical of the Executing Court’s approach, granted extensions on 18.10.2023, 26.02.2024, 24.07.2024, and 18.11.2024. Each order allowed further time, with cautionary notes that no further indulgence would be shown.
An affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, on 20.05.2025 stated that a letter had been written to the Special Secretary, Public Works Department, seeking advice on compliance, whether through possession, compensation, or acquisition. A further affidavit filed by the Special Secretary, PWD, on 28.05.2025 contained arguments on merits, stating that the Department had only metalled roads and never acquired possession of the suit property, that the land was “Share-aam” under Section 42-A of the East Punjab Holdings Act, and that management vested with the Gram Panchayat. The affidavit also referred to a judgment dated 29.07.2024 in another civil appeal, setting aside a decree in similar circumstances.
The High Court noted that the affidavits effectively re-argued the merits of the case, contrary to the settled principle that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree. The Court also recorded that repeated requests for extension by the Executing Court mirrored the State’s position, revealing a lack of intent to comply with the 2017 judgment.
Justice Sudeepthi Sharma recorded that “nearly a decade after filing the execution in the year 2015, the execution proceedings are still stalled by the Executing Court.” The Court stated that “the reasoning given this time by the Executing Court for extension of time is, that the legal opinion have been sought by District Attorney concerned for proceeding further in the matter. This recurring pattern of seeking extension shows that the Executing Court is apparently trying to help the judgment debtors.”
The Court noted the decree of 13.08.2014 had directed compensation within six months, failing which possession could be recovered, and that this judgment had been upheld up to the High Court. “The decree holder – plaintiff filed execution wherein every sort of attempt was made by the defendants-judgment debtors to create obstacles by filing objections after objections/supplementary objections, all of which have been dismissed from time to time.”
The Court observed that despite the 17.04.2023 direction to conclude execution within six months, “at least five extensions were granted by this Court, last extension was granted on 18.11.2024, and till 18.11.2024 beyond six months, further 11 months extension was granted to the Executing Court. Notwithstanding such indulgence till date, no effort has been made by the Executing Court to get the decree executed.”
Referring to the affidavits, the Court stated that “all the paras of affidavit filed by Ms. Hargunjit Kaur, IAS, Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Public Works (B&R), Punjab are nothing but arguments on merits of the case, which has already stood decided in RSA-3843-2017 and RSA-3845-2017, vide judgment dated 02.08.2017.”
The Court noted that “the Executing Court has failed to discharge its duty under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Instead, learned Executing Court is trying to justify the inordinate delay by citing untenable excuses.” It further recorded that “in all the zimni orders as well as application for seeking extension of time before this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has shown his/her helplessness, weakness, lack of control and powerlessness.”
The Court quoted Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418, stating “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.” It also cited Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goval Education and Welfare Society, observing “the Execution Court is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter.” The Court further quoted Periyammal (Dead) v. V. Rajamani, Civil Appeal Nos.3640-3642 of 2025, where the Supreme Court held that “it is said that the woes for the litigants in this country start once they are able to obtain a decree in their favour and are unable to execute and reap its fruits for years together.”
The Court directed that “the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, is directed to take immediate steps to ensure compliance of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (supra) and to issue appropriate directions to the Executing Court to proceed strictly in accordance with law.” It ordered that “the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guru Har Sahai, shall decide the execution application within a maximum period of two months from the date of this order, on a day-to-day basis.” The Court categorically held that “no further extension shall be granted by this Court under any circumstances.”
The Court also directed circulation of the order: “A copy of this order be sent to all District and Sessions Judges of States of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, who shall ensure strict compliance of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (supra) in their respective jurisdictions. Any disposal of execution proceedings beyond six months from filing shall be treated as contempt of the said judgment. A copy of this order be also sent to Chief Secretary, Punjab.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate; Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate; Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G, Punjab
Case Title: Kanwar Naresh Singh Sodhi vs. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number: CM-4553-CII-2025 in CR-2181-2023
Bench: Justice Sudeepthi Sharma
