In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the constant abuse of procedural provisions that defeat justice, such as putting up frivolous objections or setting up third parties to contest for the sake of delaying the outcome in a case.
BACKGROUND
Let us discuss the brief background of this case.
The facts of the case at hand are not relevant for the purposes of this show and we just need to know that there was a case that was being contested since last more than two decades and despite having judgment of the Court, the same was not getting implemented because of continuous objections that were raised by the parties and hence, the execution or implementation of the decree was stalled.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
Hence, let us understand the observations of the Court.
It was observed that as on 31st December 2018, there were 11,80,275 Execution Applications pending in various courts of India and according to the Court, “the execution proceedings which are supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice.”
Further, the Court discussed the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the manner in which its provisions are being misused by the litigating parties. However, according to the Court, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) intends that all questions that may arise in a suit, must be decided in the same trial itself, so as to avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT
Therefore, the Court felt that it was constrained to issue certain directions to all the Trial Courts that are dealing with Civil Suits and Execution Proceedings.
Firstly, it was directed that in suits relating to delivery of possession, the Trial Court must examine the parties in relation to disclosure of any third-party interest in the suit-property and seek production of documents upon oath. This would ensure that later on third parties do not spring up to cause a delay in the litigation.
Secondly, wherever required, a commissioner could be appointed to assess the accurate description and status of the property so that the cases do not get delayed on account of these petty issues.
Thirdly, after examination of parties or production of documents or the report of the Commissioner, as the case may be, the Trial Court must add the necessary parties that have not yet been impleaded to the suit, so as to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings.
Fourthly, under Order 40 of CPC, “a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as Custodia Legis (In custody of Law) for proper adjudication of the matter.”
Fifthly, the decrees that are passed must be unambiguous as to the description and the status of the property.
Sixthly, in money suits, before settling the issues, the Defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath to the extent of his liability in the suit and under Order 40 Rule 11 of CPC, the Court should ensure immediate execution of decree for payment of money on Oral Applications itself. This would ensure that in the garb of seeking time for drafting of Applications, no delay could be sought.
Seventhly, in Execution Proceedings, the Execution Courts must not issue notice at the behest of third parties in a mechanical manner and no issues ought to be taken up that have already been taken up by or ought to have been take up before, the Trial Court.
Eighthly, taking of evidence in Execution Proceedings should be done only in exceptional cases where other methods could not be resorted to, and where frivolous issues are raised in Execution Proceedings, compensatory costs under Section 35A of CPC should be granted to the other party.
Ninthly, Execution Proceedings should be decided expeditiously within six months and any further delay should be supported by reasons to be recorded to in writing. Police assistance could also be sought wherever necessary.
And lastly, “under Section 60 of 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.”
So, these were the directions that were issued by the Supreme Court in relation to delay in Execution Proceedings and Civil Suits. Further, the Court also directed the High Courts to update all their rules in relation to Execution Proceedings, within one year, and till such exercise is completed, the directions that we discussed shall remain enforceable.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, it could be said that delay in civil suits is not a new phenomenon and whenever such issues come up before the Supreme Court, it tries to do something constructive to curb this menace. These directions should prove to reduce the pendency in the Execution Courts and in the Civil Suits. I hope that both the Advocates and the Trial Courts work hand in hand, in enforcement of these directions to reduce delay and prolonged litigations.
