[2025:RJ-JP:39290] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13962/2025 1. Ahsaan Ahmad Ansari Son Of Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Ansari, Resident Of 4412, Chhapaar Bandho Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Since Deceased During Suit) Through Legal Heirs 1/1. Shamina Bano Wife Of Late Shri Ahsaan Ahmad Ansari, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 4412, Chhapar Bandho Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/2. Haseen Ahmad Ansari Son Of Late Shri Ahsaan Ahmad Ansari, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 4412, Chhapar Bandho Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/3. Anzar Ahmad Ansari Son Of Late Shri Ahsaan Ahmad Ansari, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 4412, Chhapar Bandho Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/4. Safia Naaz Daughter Of Late Shri Ahsaan Ahmad Ansari, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 4412, Chhapar Bandho Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Rais Son Of Wali Mohammad, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 1141, Jeeva Choudhary Ki Gali, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Plaintiffs/Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. District Collector, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarter, Sahakar Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan (North), Collectorate Premises, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Station House Officer, Police Station-Amer, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Commandant Fifth Bataaliyan, R.a.c., Lalwas, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Delit Date 10-01-2019) 7. Tehsildar, Tehsil-Amer, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. 8. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Through Secretary, Indira Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents/Non-Petitioners/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:39290] (2 of 7) [CW-13962/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 23/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners with a prayer to issue direction to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Executing Court’) to decide the Execution Application No.03/2025 at the earliest. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners. 3. As per the facts on record the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants in which it was mentioned that plaintiffs are in possession of residential constructed houses, old constructed well and having electricity connection on their land situated in Khasra Nos.5464, 5465, 5466, 5467, 5468 (Old Khasra No.6350), admeasuring 1.15 hectare i.e. 4 bigha 14 biswa situated at Dhani Sarai Bawadi, ahead of Chungi Naka, Delhi Bypass Road Amer, Jaipur City. The petitioners sought declaration of allotment letter dated 18.01.1992 as null and void with other reliefs. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021 and thereby, declared the allotment letter dated 18.01.1992 as null and void and directed to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioners after removing the encroachment over the suit property. [2025:RJ-JP:39290] (3 of 7) [CW-13962/2025] Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants/respondents preferred a first appeal before the High Court, which came to be dismissed on 03.03.2025, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The defendants/respondents did not comply with the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore the petitioners filed an Execution Application No.03/2025 before the Executing Court on 27.01.2025 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021. The said execution application is pending till date even after passing of about eight months. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits before this Court that the matter has been listed before the Executing Court for twenty six (26) times and about eight months have passed, but the decree has not been executed till date. He further submits that in the circumstances aforesaid, it is a fit case where directions are required to be issued to the Executing Court for concluding the execution application within a stipulated period. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.; (2021) 6 SCC 418 has provided guidelines and directions for execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted 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 [2025:RJ-JP:39290] (4 of 7) [CW-13962/2025] 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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:39290] (5 of 7) [CW-13962/2025] 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 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." 6. 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:39290] (6 of 7) [CW-13962/2025] "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." 7. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case and more particularly the fact that the suit which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021 and the same has attained finality even up to the top Court and the execution application which was filed on 27.01.2025, has not been concluded even after lapse of about eight months, this Court feels that ends of justice would meet if the directions are issued to the Executing Court to conclude the execution application within a stipulated period. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II to conclude/complete the proceedings of execution application No. 03/2025 at the earliest and preferably within a [2025:RJ-JP:39290] (7 of 7) [CW-13962/2025] period of 3 months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order. 9. The Executing Court may resort to day-to-day proceedings of the execution application. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /41