Shri Amar Singh vs The State Of M P Through The Principal Secretary Home Department

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30732
1 WP-44407-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44407 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020426342026
SHRI AMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF M P THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME
DEPARTMENT AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Bhavesh Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Singh Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or. direction like Mandamus,
directing the learned Executing Court, Sardarpur, District Dhar (M.P.),
to expeditiously decide and conclude the
proceedings of Execution Case No. 39/2018, arising out of the award
dated 05/04/2016 passed by the learned Reference Court, within such
time-bound period as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court, in
accordance with law;
(B) Pass any other or further order or direction as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, in the interest of justice and
C) Any other relief which the Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience.

It is stated at the bar that execution proceeding of the amount which is
awarded under Land Acquisition Act is pending since 2018.
The Hon'ble Apex court in the recent judgment in case of Periyammal
(Dead) through LRs Vs. V. Rajamani and others reported in 2025 INSC 329 has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-10-2026
19:15:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30732
2 WP-44407-2026
expressed about the pendency of the execution proceedings and observed that

parties are not getting there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the
time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which
the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour
unable to execute and reap its fruits for years together. In the present case also it is
stated at the bar that petitioner has not received any amount till today and last 8
years the execution proceeding is also pending and award is passed in year 2016.
In the case of Periyammal (supra), the Hon'ble Court has held as under:-

63. What flows from the position of law, as afore stated, is that the
issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the
adjudication of the original suit cannot be determined by the executing
court as such adjudication may undermine the decree itself. This Court
in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC
418 has held that the benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct
a retrial causing failure of realisation of fruits of the decree. The
relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
“24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 CPC
contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to
execution i.e. discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with
the consequential provisions of Order 21 CPC. Section 47 is intended
to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and
the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of
the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the
question must be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the
dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and
dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible.
25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees,
executing court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is
steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution
causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the
party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour.
Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the
executing court and the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the
litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is
allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not
entitled to.
26. The general practice prevailing in the subordinate courts is that
invariably in all execution applications, the courts first issue show-
cause notice asking the judgment-
debtor as to why the decree should not be executed as is given under
Order 21 Rule 22 for certain class of cases. However, this is often
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-10-2026
19:15:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30732
3 WP-44407-2026
misconstrued as the beginning of a new trial. For example, the
judgment-debtor sometimes misuses the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2
and Order 21 Rule 11 to set up an oral plea, which invariably leaves no
option with the court but to record oral evidence which may be
frivolous. This drags the execution proceedings indefinitely.
27. This is antithesis to the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, which
stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must
be decided in one and the same trial. Order 1 and Order 2 which relate
to parties to suits and frame of suits with the object of avoiding
multiplicity of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder
of cause of action so that common questions of law and facts could be
decided at one go.” (Emphasis supplied)
64. In the present case, the appellants have pleaded in their plaint that
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively were impleaded therein as
defendants as they were in possession of the suit property. However,
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 chose not to contest the suit despite being
aware of the prayer of the appellant for delivery of possession of the
suit properties. They could have filed a joint written statement stating
that they are cultivating tenants at the stage of the original suit itself,
but rather raised the said issue in the form of objections at the stage of
execution.
71. In such circumstances referred to above, we have reached the
conclusion that the High Court committed an egregious error in passing
the impugned order. We must now ensure that the appellants are able to
reap the fruits of the decree. We are also of the view that the rejection
by the High Court of the amendments to the execution petition filed by
the appellants, was erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say
something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the end of the
Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions.
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. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall
mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:
42.1. 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.
42.2. 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.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-10-2026
19:15:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30732
4 WP-44407-2026
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. 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.
42.9. 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-A. 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.
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-10-2026
19:15:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30732
5 WP-44407-2026
executing courts.” (Emphasis supplied)
74. 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.
75. 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.

Considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
o f High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
reported in 2024(6) SCC 267, though this Court is not proceeding to pass any
order for expediting the proceedings, but considering the peculiar facts and
considering the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Periyammal
(supra), I am of the view that the executing Court is required to be directed to
make an endeavour to decide the proceeding finally as expeditiously as possible
preferably on or before 31st December, 2026.
With above direction this petition is disposed off.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-10-2026
19:15:10