Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal directed executing courts to refrain from allowing withdrawal and refiling of execution petitions unless supported by valid justification, noting that such practices lead to undue delays in enforcing decrees. Accepting the explanation offered by the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court for delayed data submission, the Court expressed concern over the pendency of more than 1.41 lakh execution petitions in the State’s district judiciary. It urged the High Court to take immediate steps to formulate a mechanism ensuring the effective and expeditious disposal of pending execution matters and directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate action.

The case stemmed from miscellaneous applications arising out of a previous Supreme Court judgment delivered in March 2025, through which the Court had been monitoring the disposal of execution petitions pending before various district courts. In compliance with earlier directions, all High Courts were required to submit updated data on the disposal and pendency of execution cases. The present proceedings concerned the non-submission of such data by the High Court of Karnataka within the stipulated time.

Also Read: ‘Judiciary Draws Its Strength From Discipline, Not Dominion’: Supreme Court Quashes Bombay High Court Order on Private Forests for Ignoring Binding Precedent

Pursuant to a reminder issued by the Supreme Court Registry, the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court filed an affidavit explaining the delay. The affidavit detailed the process of collecting district-wise data from 30 judicial districts and several taluka courts across the State. It stated that while some districts had furnished information on time, others—including Dharwad and a few more—had delayed their submissions. In certain instances, the data initially received was inaccurate and required correction, leading to further delays.

The Registrar General also cited intervening court holidays and the necessity of submitting information in a revised format requested by the Supreme Court Registry. It was asserted that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent but arose from efforts to ensure accuracy and completeness. The affidavit concluded with an unconditional apology for the lapse and affirmed the High Court’s continued commitment to comply with all directions issued by the Supreme Court.

The Bench recorded that “The explanation offered by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka is accepted.” The affidavit submitted by the Registrar General detailed the process of gathering information on execution petitions from 30 districts across the State and explained that delays occurred due to incomplete and inaccurate data, subsequent verification, and intervening court holidays. The affidavit also contained an unconditional apology for the lapse, which the Court accepted.

The Bench observed that “the statement showing the pendency of the execution petitions in the district judiciary of the State of Karnataka as on 28.02.2025 is alarming.” The figures placed before the Court reflected an “Opening Balance of 1,54,729, Institution of 5,092, Disposal of 2,604, and a Closing Balance of 1,57,217 execution petitions.”

It further recorded that “as on 06.03.2025, the total execution petitions pending in the district judiciary of the State of Karnataka was 1,51,278. In a span of six months thereafter, a total of 41,221 execution petitions came to be disposed of. As on date, 1,41,814 execution petitions are pending in the district judiciary in the State of Karnataka.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Directs SOP For Minor Sexual Offence Victims With Digital Dashboards, 24x7 Medical Care; Allows Termination Of Minor Rape Victim’s Pregnancy

The Bench observed that “1,41,814 is a very alarming pendency,” and stated that “We expect the High Court of Karnataka to take up the issue of huge pendency of the execution petitions in the different courts of its district judiciary very seriously.”

The Court directed that :“The High Court of Karnataka shall evolve some procedure and guide the district judiciary for effective and expeditious disposal of the execution petitions pending as on date. The executing court should ensure that without any valid reason, it should not permit the learned advocates to withdraw the execution petitions and then refile them again. It is only for a very valid reason that the executing court may permit withdrawal of the execution petition already filed with permission to file a fresh petition.”

“One copy of this order shall be forwarded at the earliest to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka who, in turn, shall place it before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Jain, AOR; Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR; Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.; Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR; Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR; Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv.; Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR; Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.; Ms. Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Adv.; Ms. Smriti Singh, Adv.; Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR; Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.; Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv.; Mr. Ram Ji Dwivedi, Adv.

Case Title: Periyammal (Dead Through LRs) & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr.
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1889–1891 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640–3642 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal