Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89379 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5182 of 2025 Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Respondent :- Suresh Yadav Counsel for Petitioner :- Alpana Chittranshi,Atul Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This is a petition on behalf of plaintiff-decree holder seeking execution of decree of the year 2015. 2. It is contended that the plaintiff-decree holder instituted Original Suit No. 423 of 1987. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 08.07.2015. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed in the year 2017 with a delay. The said application was dismissed on 15.05.2024. Against the said order, a misc. civil appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) was preferred which was dismissed on 28.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said order has challenged through Matters under Article 227 No. 5172 of 2025 in which only notice has been issued and no interim order has been passed. The sole prayer is for expediting the proceeding of Execution Case No. 1 of 2016. 4. Recently, the Apex Court, on 06.03.2025, in Periyammal vs. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 considering the earlier judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 had held that the execution proceedings should be concluded expeditiously. 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 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 the Execution Case No. 1 of 2016 and decide the same in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad