Execution delays beyond 6 months to be treated as contempt of SC judgment

Making it clear that adjournments and repeated indulgence in execution matters will no longer be tolerated, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that disposal of execution proceedings beyond six months from filing would be treated as contempt of the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Rahul S. Shah’s case.

The Bench also made it clear that accountability for delay would not stop at the judicial level. Even State officers stalling compliance would be held equally culpable of disobedience of the Supreme Court’s binding judgment.

Referring to the mandate of the apex court in Shah’s case, Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted it categorically ruled that all executing courts would dispose of execution proceedings within six months from filing. Any extension beyond the period could only be granted “by recording specific reasons in writing for the delay”

Issuing systemic directions for overall compliance, Justice Sharma ordered the order’s forwarding to all District and Sessions Judges across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. They were, in turn, directed to ensure strict compliance of the directions.

The ruling came as Justice Sharma admonished an Executing Court in a case where a decree-holder was waiting since 2015 in a land related matter in Guruhar Sahai. “Since 2015 till 2025 – almost a decade – the Executing Court is not able to perform its duty. This amounts to contempt of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case. 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 Supreme Court which if continued, would attract the consequences of wilful disobedience as contemplated under law,” the court asserted.

Pointing at the facts of the case, Justice Sharma asserted the Executing Court filed at least five applications seeking extensions that despite its April 17, 2023, order directing disposal within six months. The last extension was granted on November 18, 2024.

Justice Sharma added applications for time extensions for disposal of the execution pleas showed that Executing Court failed to discharge its duty and was trying to justify the inordinate delay by citing untenable excuses such as of non-appearance of the government pleader/judgment debtor, want of police assistance, awaiting ‘legal opinion’ from District Attorney’s office for proceeding further. “Such reasons, in considered view of this Court are not legally sustainable in the eyes of law,” the court added.

Coming down on the repeated accommodation of the State, Justice Sharma asserted: “This conduct demonstrates a clear departure from the discipline mandated by the Supreme Court and amounts to permitting dilatory tactics contrary to the binding directions… Such reasoning does not justify delay, it constitutes a calculated attempt to prolong execution and gain time.”