Judges, Authorities Not Completing Execution Proceeding Within 6 Months As Per SC Judgement Liable To Contempt: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that failure of judicial officers and authorities to complete execution proceedings within six months—as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi—"shall be treated as contempt of the said judgment."

The Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah case while issuing directions to reduce delays in the execution proceedings, observed that an 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.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma in the present case noted that after eight years, decree holder was forced to approach the High Court for directions to the Executing Court to execute the decree which is in favour of the decree holder i.e. the petitioners. Since 2015 till 2025 i.e. almost a decade, the Executing Court is not able to perform its duty, the Court said.

"This amounts to contempt of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah's case (supra). Rather not only the judicial officers, who are exercising the powers of Executing Court but the officers of the Punjab who are trying to delay are also causing disobedience of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah's case (supra) which if continued, would attract the consequences of willful disobedience as contemplated under law," it added.

Justice Sharma said, the Executing Court was bound to conclude the execution application within six months of its filing. Yet, nearly a decade has elapsed since the initiation of execution in 2015, and no effective enforcement order has been passed. This prolonged pendency persists despite the binding mandate of Rahul S. Shah's case, delivered in 2021, requiring strict adherence to the six-month disposal period.

The case pertains to an execution petition filed in 2015 at Guruharsahai, Punjab, which remains pending to date. The Executing Court had sought at least five extensions between September 2023 and February 2025, citing reasons such as the non-appearance of government counsel, awaiting police assistance, and even seeking a “legal opinion” from the District Attorney.

The High Court found these excuses legally untenable, noting that they reflected a “casual approach” and even “incompetency.”

"Such reasoning does not justify delay, it constitutes a calculated attempt to prolong execution and gain time," the Court opined.

Observing that,"such latitude is legally impermissible",the judge said, "Section 51 of the CPC confers wide powers upon the court to enforce execution. Part II of the CPC is devoted to execution, and Order XXI prescribes the procedure for execution of decrees and orders."

While Order XVII of CPC pertaining to adjournments in suits restricts the grant of adjournments to not more than three, there is no provision under Order XXI that authorises the repeated adjournments witnessed here, it added.

The Court highlighted that, the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah's case passed in the year 2021 has categorically given timeline of 6 months for disposal of the execution proceedings from the date of its filing. Further that any extension beyond this period can only be granted by recording specific reasons in writing for the delay.

"This delay refers to circumstances attributable to the Executing Court itself such as unavoidable procedural impediments or circumstances beyond its control. The said judgment does not contemplate, nor permit, delay on account of dilatory tactics or non-cooperation, or deliberate obstructions by judgment debtors," it added.

The Court directed to send the copy of the order to all District and Sessions Judges of States of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, who shall ensure strict compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah's case.

 It also directed the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur,  to take immediate steps to ensure compliance of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah's case (supra) and to issue appropriate directions to the Executing Court to proceed strictly in accordance with law.

 Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate

Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

Title: KANWAR NARESH SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order