IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4029 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 M/s Pirthi Chand Kaushal. … Petitioner Versus M/s Om Parkash, Ramesh Kumar Rice Mills, Sahnewal and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. C.M. No. 16761-CII of 2009 Allowed, as prayed for. C.R. No. 4029 of 2009 The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content and interests of justice would be served, if a direction is issued to the learned Executing Court for a time-bound disposal of the execution application, pending consideration at the hands of the Executing Court since 1990. C.R. No. 4029 of 2009 A perusal of the averments made in the course of the present petition make startling and revelatory reading. The impugned execution (No.67 dated 14.06.1990) was filed by the petitioner to execute the (judgment and) decree dated 30.05.1990, for the recovery of Rs.14,68,466.80 paise and the awarded interest thereupon. The petitioner has reproduced interim orders for the period 12.08.2006 to 13.06.2009. Orders dated 12.08.2006, 18.08.2006 and27.09.2006 are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “Present: Counsel for the parties. Reply not filed. Now be filed on 18.8.06. Sd/- S.S.Dhaliwal, CJ(SD) 12.08.2006 Present: Counsel for the parties. Application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC is to be traced from original file. Now be traced upto 2.9.06. Sd/- CJ(SD)/18.8.06 Present : As above. Application traced. Now for consideration to come upon 28.10.06. Sd/- CJ(SD)/27.09.2006” 2 C.R. No. 4029 of 2009 There is a precise averment in the petition that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. had been filed by respondents No. 8 and 9 herein on 03.01.2006 and reply thereto was filed by the petitioner herein (and decree holder therein) on 21.01.2006 and that application too is pending consideration ever since then. In spite thereof, the order dated 12.08.2006 notices that the reply is yet to be filed. The order dated 18.08.2006 notices that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC “is to be traced from original file”. Order dated 02.09.2006 further notices that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was yet to be traced. The matter was adjourned to 28.09.2006. The interim order recorded by the learned Executing Court on that date notices that the application has been traced out and the matter was adjourned to 28.10.2006 “for consideration”. Thereafter, the matter was repeatedly adjourned “for consideration” on 12.02.2007, 19.02.2007, 24.02.2007, 01.03.2007, 07.03.2007, 13.03.2007, 21.03.2007, 30.03.2007, 10.04.2007, 18.04.2007, 02.05.2007, 23.05.2007, 24.07.2007, 18.08.2007, 20.09.2007, 06.10.2007, 08.11.2007, 07.12.2007, 16.02.2008, 29.03.2008, 19.04.2008, 26.04.2008, 13.05.2008, 13.06.2008, 26.07.2008, 27.08.2008, 04.10.2008, 08.11.2008, 06.12.2008, 03.01.2009, 17.01.2009, 31.01.2009, 3 C.R. No. 4029 of 2009 07.02.2009, 02.03.2009, 17.03.2009, 28.03.2009, 15.04.2009, 09.05.2009, 11.05.2009, 14.05.2009, 23.05.2009, 28.05.2009, 02.06.2009 and 13.06.2009. An absolutely similar order was duplicated on each date of hearing. In the meantime, as many as three Presiding Officers changed (this observation is applicable only to the proceedings taken by the learned Executing Court during the period 12.08.2006 to 13.06.2009. The inordinate long pendency of an execution application in a suit for the recovery makes a dismal reading. In fact, it can safely be taken to be a reflection on the efficacy of the system of administration of justice under the charge of the Executing Court. In view of the fact that the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has limited the prayer to the above indicated extent, I find it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition in limine. The petition shall stand disposed of in limine accordingly with a direction to the learned Executing Court to dispose of the execution application by 31.08.2009. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned District Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned period. 4 C.R. No. 4029 of 2009 The obtaining of an executable decree (not hedged by any stay order of a higher Court) is the first step of achievement for a decree-holder. The real ordeal starts thereafter only when he sets down to realise the fruit thereof by applying for its execution. If the execution itself takes more than 19 years (as in the present case) and the decree is still unexecuted, it would be an apparent travesty of justice. Though, there can be no dispute with the factual position that the dockets in the Trial Courts are presently heavy, we also must not be oblivious of the fact that we have been charged with the `divine’ duty of adjudicating upon the rights and liabilities of the litigating parties and pursue the adjudication up to its logical conclusion. Any lackadaisical handling of an execution would only add to the unending woes of a decree-holder who must have, in a large number of cases, already felt exhausted on account of the unenviable (and may be unavoidable too) vicissitudes of the trial. The Judicial Officers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, are mandated to furnish the following particulars in respect of the pending execution applications:- a) number of execution applications pending since the year 1990 onwards; b) the nature of decree to be executed therein; 5 C.R. No. 4029 of 2009 c) the date of institution thereof; d) the date on which the judgment debtor entered appearance, for the first time, therein; e) the present status of the execution application. In the meantime, there shall be a direction that all the execution applications which are pending for the last five years (or more) shall be disposed of by the concerned Executing Courts by 24.12.2009. In order to alleviate the suffering of the litigating public, concerned Courts would be at liberty to consider day-to-day hearing of the cases of that category. In case, the matter has been adjourned to a long date, the concerned Courts would be authorized to prepone the relevant execution applications in accordance with law. The information aforesaid shall be furnished to the Registry of this Court by 31.07.2009 positively. It will be the responsibility of the concerned learned District Judges to ensure compliance with the order of this Court. July 22, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 6