Gujarat HC Rejects Landowners’ Challenge To Drain Said To Block Field Access, Filed 2 Years 3 Months After Execution

The petitioners, judgment-debtors, challenged an executing court’s rejection of their objections and application concerning execution of a decree dated 4 July 2002.

They contended that the decree concerned removal of a drain/conduit from Survey No. 1652/2, not Survey No. 1800, and that the Court Commissioner’s work obstructed access to their land.

After the petitioners’ appeal against the decree was dismissed, the respondents initiated execution. The petitioners did not appear to contest execution; the executing court appointed a Commissioner, who reported on 27 April 2023 that the encroachment had been removed and a drain/conduit prepared.

The petitioners filed their later application on 25 July 2025, approximately two years and three months after implementation. The executing court rejected the objections and application, and the petitioners sought supervisory review under Article 227.

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, but interference is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order discloses perversity or gross irregularity.

The Court relied on Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374, paras 6–7, and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, paras 15–16, in support of that limited supervisory standard.

It also applied the principle that a judgment-debtor cannot be permitted to raise execution objections after the stage for filing them has passed, and treated the unexplained delay in challenging implementation as a basis for rejecting the later application.

The Court noted that the petitioners had not contested the execution despite service and raised their challenge to the Commissioner’s implementation only after approximately two years and three months, without a reasonable explanation.

Although the judgment records that principles of natural justice were not followed by the executing court and/or the Commissioner, it considered the petitioners’ objections belated and found that they had not timely complained of the alleged obstruction to access to Survey No. 1800.

In those circumstances, and applying the limited scope of Article 227, the Court found no perversity or gross irregularity warranting intervention.

The Special Civil Application was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.