2021 (4) TMI 1365 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit filed for possession - Malaise of constant abuse of procedural provisions which defeats justice - Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - HELD THAT - The vendor and her son (judgment debtors) after executing the sale deed in respect of a major portion of the property, questioned the transaction by a suit for declaration. The decree holders also filed a suit for possession. During the pendency of these proceedings, two sets of sale deeds were executed. The vendors' suit was dismissed-the decree of dismissal was upheld at the stage of the High Court too. On the other hand, the purchasers' suit was decreed and became the subject matter of the appeal. The High Court dismissed the first appeal; this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. This became the background for the next stage of the proceedings, i.e. execution. Execution proceedings are now being subsisting for over 14 years. In the meanwhile, numerous applications including criminal proceedings questioning the very same documents that was the subject matter of the suit were initiated. In between the portion of the property that had been acquired became the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings and disbursement of the compensation. This Court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Counsel in The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga v. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing 1872 (3) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL which observed that the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. Thus, to avoid controversies and multiple issues of a very vexed question emanating from the rights claimed by third parties, the Court must play an active role in deciding all such related issues to the subject matter during adjudication of the suit itself and ensure that a clear, unambiguous, and executable decree is passed in any suit. It is directed that all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of Code of Civil Procedure, within one year of the date of this Order. The High Courts must ensure that the Rules are in consonance with Code of Civil Procedure and the above directions, with an endeavour to expedite the process of execution with the use of Information Technology tools. Until such time these Rules are brought into existence, the above directions shall remain enforceable. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of procedural provisions by unsuccessful litigants.
2. Disputes over property boundaries and identity.
3. Execution of decrees and obstruction by judgment debtors.
4. Forensic examination of documents.
5. Compensation for acquired property.
6. Directions for effective execution of decrees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abuse of Procedural Provisions by Unsuccessful Litigants:
The Supreme Court highlighted the "malaise of constant abuse of procedural provisions" by unsuccessful litigants to delay and obstruct the execution of decrees. This was evident in the frivolous objections and third-party setups to hinder justice. The judgment debtors repeatedly sold the same property and initiated multiple proceedings, including criminal cases, to stall the execution process.

2. Disputes Over Property Boundaries and Identity:
The appellant argued that there were disputes regarding the boundaries and identity of the properties. The Court noted that the High Court had directed the appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify and measure the properties, considering all materials on record, including previous reports. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach fair and affirmed the direction to appoint a Court Commissioner.

3. Execution of Decrees and Obstruction by Judgment Debtors:
The execution proceedings had been pending for over 14 years, with numerous applications and criminal proceedings initiated to obstruct the process. The High Court catalogued all proceedings chronologically and directed the appointment of an expert to identify and measure the decreetal properties. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for timely execution and affirmed the High Court's directions, including the payment of exemplary costs by the judgment debtors.

4. Forensic Examination of Documents:
The appellants requested a forensic examination of documents, alleging forgery. The High Court rejected this request, and the Supreme Court agreed, stating that the argument was another attempt to stall execution. The Court found no merit in the appellants' claims and upheld the decision to decline forensic examination.

5. Compensation for Acquired Property:
During the pendency of proceedings, a portion of the property was acquired for the Bangalore Metro Project. The High Court directed the vendors and others to deposit the compensation amounts received. The Supreme Court affirmed this direction, noting that the compensation should be disbursed to the rightful parties as determined by the execution proceedings.

6. Directions for Effective Execution of Decrees:
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to ensure effective execution of decrees and reduce delays:
- Courts must examine parties under Order X and Order XI Rule 14 to disclose third-party interests.
- Appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation and description of the property.
- Issuance of public notices to invite claims and avoid future objections.
- Clear and unambiguous decrees with accurate property descriptions.
- Immediate execution of money decrees under Order XXI Rule 11.
- Strict handling of frivolous objections under Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 99.
- Disposal of execution proceedings within six months, extendable with written reasons.
- Police assistance for executing officials if necessary.
- Continuous training for court personnel involved in execution.

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to update their rules relating to the execution of decrees within one year to expedite the process and ensure compliance with the above directions. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to cooperate with the executing court.