Decree-Holders Still Await Possession After Years: Madras HC Directs Poonamallee Court to Expedite Execution

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should direct the Executing Court to expedite disposal of the pending execution petitions.

The court held

The Court allowed the request for expedition and directed the Sub Court, Poonamallee, to dispose of the respective execution petitions as expeditiously as possible, having in mind the timeline fixed by the Supreme Court in Periyammal v. Rajamani.

It also directed

The order did not specify a separate deadline for disposal.

01Facts

The petitioners had obtained decrees for possession, rental arrears and damages against the respective respondents and filed execution petitions before the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

pp. 1–6 · ¶ 2–4

The execution petitions, most of which were filed in 2013, remained pending without progress, with various applications filed in the execution proceedings.

pp. 1–6 · ¶ 2–4

The petitioners sought directions under Article 227 of the Constitution for their early disposal.

pp. 1–6 · ¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should direct the Executing Court to expedite disposal of the pending execution petitions.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 1–4

ii.Whether the Executing Court should have regard to the timeline identified by the Supreme Court in Periyammal v. Rajamani when disposing of those petitions.

p. 7 · ¶ 4

03Law Applied

The petitions invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to seek directions concerning the progress of pending execution proceedings.

pp. 1–6

The Court also relied on Periyammal v. Rajamani, reported as 2025 INSC 329, as identifying a timeline relevant to execution proceedings; it directed the Executing Court to keep that timeline in mind.

p. 7 · ¶ 4

The order does not set out a further statutory test or elaborate on the precedent’s specific requirements.

04Reasoning

The execution petitions had remained pending for years—most since 2013—and the Court noted that applications filed in the execution proceedings had kept the main petitions pending without progress.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 2–4

Given that delay and the petitioners’ inability to obtain the fruits of their decrees, the Court considered directions for expedition warranted.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 2–4

It required the Executing Court to act as expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the timeline in Periyammal.

p. 7 · ¶ 4