[2025:RJ-JP:41950] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15063/2025 Kusum Gupta W/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, aged about 59 Years, Resident of 95, Jhalniyon Ka Rasta Kisanpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ghanshyam Natani S/o Shri Badri Narayan Natani, 2. Smt. Saroj Natani W/o Ghanshyam Natani, 3. Pankaj Natani S/o Ghanshyam Natani, 4. Ayan Natani (Arun Natani) S/o Shri Ghan Shyam Natani, All Resident of 42, Hardev Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga with Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan Mr. Aanjnaiy Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 14/10/2025 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the Executing Court to decide Execution Petition No.92/2022 within a period of six months from the receipt of the order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a civil suit bearing No.123/2014 for specific performance of the contract and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2019. 3. Being aggrieved of which, the respondents preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 59/2020 along with a stay application. [2025:RJ-JP:41950] (2 of 4) [CW-15063/2025] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.01.2020, disposed of the SB Civil Miscellaneous Stay Application No.134/2020 while imposing certain conditions on the respondents, but the respondents have not adhered to the conditions so imposed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the stay order stands vacated. He further submits that against the conditional stay order dated 24.01.2020, the respondents have preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6463/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.04.2022. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents, thereafter, filed a second stay application No.3704/2025 and after arguing at some length, and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 10.10.2025. He also submits that the petitioner, despite having the decree in his favour, is not able to get the fruits of the decree and the execution petition filed by the petitioner is being delayed and deferred by the respondents for one reason or other. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of the execution may be passed. 6. Heard the submissions made at bar and considered the material available on record. 7. From the facts of the case, it is evident that against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2019, the respondents have preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 59/2020, wherein conditional stay order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020, however, the said conditions were not complied with, therefore, the stay order was vacated. Thereafter, [2025:RJ-JP:41950] (3 of 4) [CW-15063/2025] the respondents has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6463/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2022. The respondents filed a second stay application No.3704/2025 that came to be dismissed on 10.10.2025 as not pressed which makes it abundantly clear that there is no stay operating against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2019. 8. Further, from the order-sheet of the Executing Court, it is reflected that the execution proceeding is being delayed for one reason or other, despite the fact that there is no interim order by the Court. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.1; has provided guidelines and directions for execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted as under:- "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." 10. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Periyammal (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. vs. V. Rajamani & Anr.2 has observed in para No.74 & 75 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 the 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 1 (2021) 6 SCC 418 2 2025 SCC Online SC 507 [2025:RJ-JP:41950] (4 of 4) [CW-15063/2025] 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." 11. In that view of the matter, the Executing Court is directed to decide the execution petition expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of the copy of this Order and while doing so, it is expected from the Executing Court that no unnecessary or unreasonable request for adjournment is entertained. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /23