HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9303 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioner, before this Court, is plaintiff who filed a suit which was registered as S.C.C. Case No.4 of 2022. The said suit was allowed by the judgment passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), New Court Ist, Jaunpur on 22.04.2024. Petitioner has filed Execution Case No.59 of 2024 on 30.05.2024, wherein the defendant-respondent had filed his objections under Section 47 CPC, which are pending. 2. It is also averred in the writ petition that the defendant had filed a Civil Revision No.157 of 2024. Further, in para 12 of the writ petition, it is also averred that the defendant-respondent has also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC on 10.03.2025 in the said execution case. The prayer made in the writ petition is for expeditious disposal of the said Execution Case No.59 of 2024. 3. Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of defendant-respondent and submits that a civil revision is pending against the ex-parte judgment passed by the trial Court. He also fairly submits that there is no interim order operating in the civil revision. 4. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending or calling for counter affidavit, the writ petition is being disposed of requiring the Executing Court to proceed with the matter and decide the said execution case as, recently, the Apex Court, on 06.03.2025, in Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 had held that the execution proceedings should be concluded expeditiously considering the earlier judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Rahul S. Shah v. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Ashish Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vijay Bahadur Yadav Smt. Shahajahan .....Petitioner(s) Husnain .....Respondent(s) Jindendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereasunder:- 72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions. 73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S. Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below: 42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions: 42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties.*** 42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property. *** 42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant. 42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A. *** 42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six A227 No. 9303 of 2025 2 months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. *** (Emphasis supplied) 74. The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022. 5. In view of the said fact, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with Execution Case No. 59 of 2024 and decide the same in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. October 17, 2025 SK Goswami A227 No. 9303 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad