[2025:RJ-JP:37817] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13824/2025 1. Smt. Kaushalya Mishra W/o (Late) Shri V. N. Mishra, R/o A-6, Jai Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 2. Kuldeep Mishra S/o (Late) Shri V. N. Mishra, R/o A-6, Jai Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shri R. K. Khaitan S/o Shri Chandi Prasad Ji Khaitan, R/o D-33, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 2. M/s. Bearing Company, Through Proprietor, Ashwani Nevtiya, R/o Plot No. 36, Gul Mohar Lane, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 3. Anoop Kumar S/o (Late) Shri R. K. Khaitan, R/o D-33, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur 4. Alka D/o (Late) Shri R. K. Khaitan, R/o D-33, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 5. Anupama W/o Shri Ashish Maanlingka D/o (Late) Shri R. K. Khaitan, R/o D-33, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur 6. Smt. Anjali W/o Shri Anil Goyal D/o (Late) Shri R. K. Khaitan, R/o D-33, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ridhima Gupta Mr. Yaswant Singh Ms. Tanisha Kumawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 16/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners-decree holder/plaintiff under Section 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the court below to [2025:RJ-JP:37817] (2 of 6) [CW-13824/2025] dispose of the execution application No. 173/2024 (old No.63/2017) titled as Smt. Kaushalya Mishra and Anr. Vs. Shri R.K. Khaitan and Ors. filed under Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, 1908 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. As per the facts on record, the plaintiff petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 55/2001 seeking eviction of the respondents and payment of outstanding rent. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017 in favour of the petitioner by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan directing the respondents to handover the possession, mesne profit and rent due to the petitioners. 4. Against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017, the respondents preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 240/2017 which is pending for adjudication. The High Court, vide interim order dated 08.05.2017, ordered that decretal amount/rent fixed by the trial Court shall be paid to the plaintiff petitioners regularly and arrears to be paid within three months after adjustment of the amount already paid in the bank account. It was also made clear that if the arrears were not paid within three months and monthly rent as fixed has not been paid regularly in the plaintiff's account, then the respondents will be at liberty to get the decree executed without reference to the Court. It was also observed that the trial Court shall not accept any extension or otherwise in that regard. 5. The Petitioners preferred execution application which is said to have been pending in the Executing Court since 2017. [2025:RJ-JP:37817] (3 of 6) [CW-13824/2025] 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.; (2021) 6 SCC 418 has observed as under:- "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 X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI 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. 42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property. 42.3. After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit. 42.4. Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter. 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. 42.6. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application. 42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree. 42.8. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an [2025:RJ-JP:37817] (4 of 6) [CW-13824/2025] application of third- arty 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 XXI as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A. 42.11. 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. 42.12. The Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. 42.13. The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned Police Station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the same must be dealt stringently in accordance with law. 42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the Court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the Executing Courts. 43. We further direct all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year [2025:RJ-JP:37817] (5 of 6) [CW-13824/2025] of the date of this Order. The High Courts must ensure that the Rules are in consonance with CPC and the above directions, with an endeavour to expedite the process of execution with the use of Information Technology tools. Until such time these Rules are brought into existence, the above directions shall remain enforceable." 7. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. V. Rajamani & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 507, vide paras 74 and 75 has observed as under:- "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 & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022. 75. In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports." 8. In view of the fact that the execution proceedings are pending since 2017 i.e. for last more than 7 years so also the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above, the Court deems just and proper to dispose this writ petition with direction to the Court below to dispose of the execution application No.173/2024 (63/2017) at earliest as per the observations of the [2025:RJ-JP:37817] (6 of 6) [CW-13824/2025] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra) and Periyammal (Dead) (supra). (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /54