Executing Courts must mandatorily conclude execution proceedings within six months as per Supreme Court directives.

The petitioners are decree-holders who obtained an eviction decree on 19.10.2023 in Civil Suit No. 42-A of 2015

They initiated execution proceedings (EX-A/7/2025) on 02.07.2025

Despite the decree-holder filing a reply to the judgment-debtor’s Section 151 CPC application by 17.10.2025, the executing court granted eight consecutive adjournments at the instance of the judgment-debtor between November 2025 and March 2026

Aggrieved by the longitudinal delay in concluding the execution, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions for expedited disposal

1. Whether the executing court failed to adhere to the mandatory timelines and procedural guidelines for execution proceedings established by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the repeated grant of adjournments at the instance of the judgment-debtor is permissible in execution proceedings.

The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418, which exercised powers under Articles 141, 142, and 144 of the Constitution of India

The core doctrine established is that executing courts must mandatorily dispose of execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, and any extension beyond this period must be supported by written reasons

The court examined Order 21 and Section 47 of the CPC regarding the scrutiny of frivolous objections and the avoidance of mechanical notice issuance

The High Court observed that the executing court’s conduct in granting eight adjournments for arguments on a single application was "not appreciated"

The court noted that such delays directly contravene the mandatory directions in Rahul S. Shah, which were intended to end the "unnecessary ordeal of litigation" for decree-holders awaiting the fruits of their decree

The court emphasized that the 14 guidelines issued by the Apex Court—ranging from the examination of parties under Order 10 to the restricted use of evidence in execution—are binding on all execution courts to ensure justice is not subverted by procedural dilatoriness

By applying these principles to the facts, the court found the existing delay in the Gwalior execution case to be unjustifiable

The petition was disposed of with a mandatory direction to the executing court to expedite the proceedings, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and conclude the matter in strict terms of the directions in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi