Execution Petition

What is an execution petition?

An execution petition means a petition to the court for the execution of the decree or order. Execution Application means an application to the Court made in a pending execution petition and includes an application for the transfer of a decree. An execution petition should be filed after a decree or final order is passed by the court, and the party against whom it is passed fails to comply voluntarily. There are two types of execution petitions: Civil execution (Order 21 CPC) and criminal execution.

The official definition of the execution petition

There is no official definition of the term execution petition however, the provisions on execution petition in the Code of Civil Procedure are found in sections 36 to 75, 135, 144, 146, 148 and Order XXI. The Code imposes considerable responsibility on the Judge in execution matters. Chapter XVI of Civil Rules of Practice consisting of Rules 205 to 285 deals with execution. Limitation Act Articles 125 to 129 and 134 to 137 deal with the limitation in respect of the execution proceedings. As per Rule 2 (e) of Civil Rules of Practice, ‘Execution petition’ means the petition to the court for the execution of any decree or order. As per Rule 2 (f) of Civil Rules of Practice ‘Execution application’ means an application to the court made in a pending Execution Petition and includes an application for transfer of a decree.

As defined in case laws

In the case of Ghan Shyam Das Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Code contains elaborate provisions which deal with all questions regarding the executability of a decree in all aspects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that numerous provisions of Order 21 take care of various situations providing effective remedies to judgment debtors, decree-holders and claimant objectors. In the cases, where provisions are not capable of giving relief inadequate measures and appropriate time, to an aggrieved party, then filing a regular suit in the civil court is the solution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further explained that the judicial quality of the remedy under the Civil Procedure Code is considered to be superior as compared to other statutes, therefore, the judges are expected to do better as they are entrusted with the administration of justice.
The time limit for execution: O20 R81 Rajasthan Civil Rule of Practice provides for time-bound disposal of Execution Proceedings. It states that the Executing Court shall 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.
Similarly, in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi it was directed that the Executing Court conclude the Execution Cases within a period of six months and in case of any extraordinary circumstances for delay, to record the reasons for the same.
In the case of Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna the court suggested legislative reforms to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to the stage of securing relief after execution proceedings
In the case S.K. Hasan Saheb v A.V. Subba Reddy and Vaniyakandy Bhaskaran v Mooliyil Pandimhijarekandy Sheela it was held that any payment made by the Judgment debtor to the decree held outside the court the same can be certified by the court.
Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin:

"The simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it. The provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. Here consideration of the debtor's other pressing needs and straitened circumstances will play prominently. We would have, by this construction, sauced law with justice, harmonised Section 51 with the covenant and the Constitution."

Gouru Giridhara Rao v Bondada Mrutyunjayam:

“When the petitioner seeking arrest and detention of respondent in civil prison, which involves liberty of the person, the petitioner shall prove the present means of respondent/Judgment debtor, which he failed to prove and averments in his affidavit with regard to the age of the Judgment debtor are admittedly wrongly shown in the execution petition. When the petitioner fails to prove the present means of respondent/Judgment debtor, he is not liable to be detained in civil prison, which is rightly observed by the learned trial Judge. This court did not find any irregularity or illegality in the Orders passed by the trial court dismissing the execution petition filed by the Decree Holder.”

C. Dilip Kumar v Y. Veera Raghavulu:

“In the course of enquiry, if the executing Court gets a whiff of dishonest tactics by the judgment debtor to delay of default the execution, the executing Courts must be absolutely firm and ruthless in stopping such unhealthy practices. This is absolutely essential because otherwise the rule of law would not only be set at nought, but it would virtually nullify and neutralize the decree of competent Courts.”

Legislative Framework

Criminal Execution

An execution can be filed under S. 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (S. 147 BNSS, 2023) after the order is passed in favour of a person.
Section 125 of Cr. P.C (S. 144 BNSS, 2023) talks about the maintenance of their wife, children and parents as the person who is not taking care of the maintenance of his wife (divorced wife or obtained a divorce from him and has not remarried) the minor children who is not capable of maintaining themselves or the girl child who is not married and the father and the mother are eligible for the maintenance from that person.
An execution petition can be filed after a decree or order is passed in favour of one party and the other party has to follow the decree or order passed by the court of justice. But after the decree or order is passed and the other party does not fulfil the decree or order only then the decree-holder will file an execution petition in the court of justice to satisfy the judicial order.

Civil Execution

Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the act of execution of the decrees passed by the Courts from the grassroots to the top. Order 21 Rule 11 provides for oral and written application. Ultimately, after the judgment attains finality or where there is no stay in the execution by any Appellate or Revisional Court, it is the Court of original jurisdiction that implements the execution.

Legislative Scheme under CPC

Section 36 provides the main principle of this section which is ‘every Court has an inherent power to have its orders carried out, as otherwise the orders would be a mere farce’. This provision is applicable to all orders which can be included in Sec 2(14) and is not limited to orders made under the code.
The decree under CPC can be executed by the court which passed the decree or the court to which it is sent for execution as per Section 37 and Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 37 of the Code establishes the scope of the expression ‘court which passed a decree’ with the object of enabling a decree-holder to recover the fruits of the decree. The courts which fall within the said expression are as follows: a) The court of first instance which actually passed the decree; b) The court of first instance in the case of appellate decrees; c) Where the court of first instance has ceased to exist, the court which would have jurisdiction to try the suit at the time of execution; and d) Where the court of first instance has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute the decree, the court which at the time of execution would have had jurisdiction to try the suit. Explanation to the section clarifies that the court of first instance shall have jurisdiction to execute a decree even in the case of any area being transferred from the jurisdiction of the court of first instance to the jurisdiction of any other court. In such cases, the court to the jurisdiction of which such area has been transferred will also have jurisdiction to execute the decree, provided that the said court had jurisdiction to try the said suit when the application for execution was made.
Section 38 of the Code further states that a decree can be executed either by the Court of the first instance or by the Court to which it has been sent for execution.
Transfer of decree: A court which has passed a decree may send it to other courts of competent justice for the execution on the application of the decree-holder under Section 39 of CPC and Section 40 of CPC. These sections tell us about the transfer of decree to court in another state. Whenever a decree is sent to some other state for execution it shall be sent to the court and executed in the manner as may be prescribed by the rule in force in that state. Section 39 of the Code which deals with the transfer of decree provides that a court that passed a decree can send it to another court for execution if the following conditions are met: The person against whom the decree is passed lives or works in the jurisdiction of the other court; The person against whom the decree is passed doesn't have enough property in the jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree; The decree orders the sale or delivery of immovable property outside the jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree
Section 47 of the CPC lays out all the questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree are to be decided by the Executing Court and even the decision of the complicated questions is also not prohibited. Section 47 of the Code provides for disposal of all the questions arising between the parties to the suit, in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Even the Code bars the powers to decide as the person raising objection is a Judgment Debtor or his representative and such question would also relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree.
Execution of Money Decree: Payment of money: Rule 30 Where a decree is for payment of money, even as an alternative to some other relief, it may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by both. Modes of payment: All money payable under a decree shall be paid either into the executing court; out of court to the decree-holder; as per the direction of the court which has passed the decree. The judgment debtor is bound to pay the decretal debt in one of the modes specified in rule 1. In the case of SK Hasan Saheb Vs. A.V. Subba Reddy it was held that any payment made by the Judgment debtor to the decree held outside the court the same can be certified by the court. In the case of Union Bank of India Rep by General Manager v V.Sathyanarayana Construction company it was held that according to Article 125 of the limitation Act to record the adjustment or satisfaction of the decree the parties have to file a petition within 30 days when the payment or adjustment is made.
Effect of payment: A payment made in accordance with the provisions of the Code operates as a valid discharge of the decree against the judgment-debtor. When interest is awarded on the decretal amount by the court, it will cease to run on the sum deposited in the court or paid to be decree-holder or to any person as per the direction of the court. Section 52 deals with the enforcement of a decree against a legal representative. Where a decree is passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person, and the decree is for payment of money out of the property of the deceased, it may be executed by the attachment and sale of any such property.
Section 56 which begins with a non-obstinate clause says that the court shall not order the arrest and detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for payment of money.
Section 60 deals with property liable to attachment and sale in the execution of a decree. Except for the leave salary and arrears of leave salary, the other amounts like gratuity, insurance amounts etc. are not liable for attachment even after it has reached the hands of the employee or his/her legal representatives.
Application for Execution: All proceedings in execution commence with the filing of an application for execution. Such an application should be made to the court which passed the decree or, where the decree has been transferred to another court, to that court. Rules 10-25 and 105-106 of Order 21 deal with execution applications.
Form: An application for execution shall be in Form No. 6 of Appendix E to the First Schedule. But even if an application is not in the proper form, the defect is not vital or material.
Except in the case of a money decree, every application for execution shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person acquainted with the facts of the case. It shall contain the necessary particulars like the number of the suit, the names of the parties, the date of the decree, the amount of the decree, etc. Where an application is made for attachment of movable property belonging to a judgment-debtor but not in his possession, the application for execution must be accompanied by an inventory of the property to be attached, containing a reasonably accurate description of the same. Where the application is for the attachment of a growing crop it shall specify the time at which it is likely to be harvested. Where the application is for attachment of immovable property of the judgment-debtor, it shall contain the description of such property sufficient to identify the same; and the specification of the judgment-debtor's share or interest therein. Where the application is for arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor, it shall state or be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which arrest is applied.
Against whom execution may taken out? Execution may be taken out against the following persons: The Judgment-debtor if he is alive (Rule 15). The legal representatives of the judgment debtor, if the judgment debtor is dead. They shall, however, be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to their hands (Section 50, 52, 53).
Procedure in execution: Sections 51 to 54 of the Code deal with the procedure in execution. Powers of the Court: Section 51 of the court defines the jurisdiction and power of the court in executing a decree. The manner of executing a decree is laid down by the Rules. The section enumerates in general terms the various modes in which the court may order the execution of a decree according to the relief granted in favour of a decree-holder. It is for the decree-holder to decide in which of the several modes he will execute his decree. An application for execution of the decree can either be oral or written (O21 R11). The court may execute the decree as per the mode of implementation prayed by the decree-holder or as the court deems fit. Section 51 of the Code is very wide and permits the execution of decrees by different modes. It gives the option to the decree-holder to enforce the decree by several modes available under the Code. As a general rule, therefore, a court passing a decree against the defendant should not ordinarily place any limitation as to the mode in which it is to be executed.
Different modes of execution: After the decree-holder files an application for execution of a decree, the executing court can enforce execution. A decree may be enforced by, delivery of any property specified in the decree, (movable or immovable) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property, or by arrest and detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor. However, this mode should not be exercised without giving a reasonable opportunity to the judgment-debtor, in the form of a show-cause notice as to why he should not be imprisoned or by appointing a receiver, or by effecting partition, or in such other manner as the nature of the relief may require.
Delivery of property: a) Movable Property: Section 51(a) Rule 31: Where the decree is for any specific movable property, it may be executed by seizure and delivery of the property; or by the detention of the judgment-debtor; or by attachment of his property; or by attachment and detention of both. The words specific movable do not include money and therefore, a decree for money cannot be executed under Rule 31. Again, for the application of this rule, the property must be in the possession of the judgment debtor. Where the property is in the possession of a third party, the provisions of this rule do not apply. b) Immovable Property: Rules 35 and Rule 36 provide the mode of executing a decree for possession of immovable property. Where the decree is for immovable property in the possession of the judgment-debtor or in the possession of the person bound by the decree, it can be executed by removing the judgment-debtor or any Inund by the decree and by delivering the possession thereof to the decree-holder. If the decree-holder satisfactorily establishes the identity of decretal property, the decree must be executed by the court by putting the decree-holder in possession thereof. But if such property is in the possession of a tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same and not bound by the decree, the delivery of the property should be made by affixing a copy of the warrant at some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming to the occupant by the beat of drum or other customary modes at some convenient place the substance of the decree regarding the property. This is known as a symbolic or formal possession.
Attachment and Sale of Property: Section 51(b) empowers the Court to order the execution of a decree by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property. The Court is competent to attach the property if it is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. It is immaterial that the place of the business of the judgment-debtor is outside the jurisdiction of the court. Rule 54 provides for the attachment of immovable property and the procedure for the proclamation of such attachment. The object of Rule 54 is to inform the judgment-debtor about attachment so that he may not transfer or create encumbrance over the property thereafter. Section 60 of the Code provides that the property which can be attached and which cannot be attached.
Arrest and detention: Section 51(b): One of the modes of executing a decree is arrest and detention in the civil prison of the judgment debtor. Section 51(c) lays down that where the decree is for payment of money, execution by detention in civil prison should not be ordered unless after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity to show cause why he should not be so detained, the court for the reasons to be recorded in writing it satisfied. To execute a decree, a judgment debtor may be arrested on any day and at any hour, and should be brought before the court as soon as possible, the detention of the debtor may be in the district civil prison by the order of the court according to Section 55 of the code.
Section 55 allows for the arrest of a judgment debtor at any time, day or night, for the execution of a decree. Once arrested, the individual must be brought before the court as soon as possible. Their detention can take place in the civil prison of the district where the court issued the order. However, if the district’s civil prison lacks suitable accommodations, the State Government may designate another facility for detaining individuals ordered to be held by the courts in that district.
Section 58 governs the period of detention for an individual based on the amount specified in the court's order and whether the decreed amount has been paid. It stipulates that if the decretal amount exceeds five thousand rupees, the person cannot be detained for more than three months. For amounts between two and five thousand rupees, detention cannot exceed six weeks, and no order for detention can be made if the amount is less than two thousand rupees. The purpose of arrest and detention is to offer relief to the decree-holder by sending the judgment debtor to civil prison if they fail to pay the decreed sum, despite having the financial capacity to do so. However, it also safeguards honest debtors who are unable to pay for legitimate reasons. To ensure fairness, the court must grant debtors the opportunity to present their case.
Execution of money decree by arrest/detention: The first such situation is indicated in the proviso to Order 21, Rule 37(1) that is, where the court is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In such a case, without issuing the notice under O21R37(1) straightaway the court can order arrest. The second situation is provided in O21R37(2) as indicated above, that is where the appearance of the judgment-debtor is not made in obedience to the notice of the court under O21R37(1) and the decree-holder requires the issuance of a warrant for the arrest. The third situation is under O21R40(3) that is, after the conclusion of the enquiry under O21R40(1) for detention in prison and, subject to Section 51 an Order for detention is passed. In such an event, the court can also pass an order of arrest, if the judgment debtor is not already under arrest. The fourth situation is mentioned in O21R40(4) of the code which says that a judgment debtor released under Rule 40 may be re-arrested. Even In the above-mentioned four cases, before an arrest order could be passed, the court should find that any one of the reasons mentioned in the proviso to Section 51 exists, in the light of the construction placed by the Supreme Court in the Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin on Section 51 of the code.
Appointment of Receiver: Section 51(d): One of the modes of execution of a decree is the appointment of a receiver. Execution by appointment of a receiver is known as equitable execution and is entirely at the discretion of the court. It cannot be claimed as of right. The appointment of a receiver in execution proceedings is considered to be an exceptional remedy and a very strong case must be made out in support of it. The decree-holder before restoring to this mode must show that there is no effective remedy for obtaining relief by the usual statutory modes of execution It has also to be satisfied that the decree is likely to be realised within a reasonable time from the attached properties so that the judgment-debtor may not be burdened with the property while he is deprived of the enjoyment of it. Again, this mode of execution cannot be resorted to in order to circumvent the statutory provisions.
Specific performance of Contract: Rule 32: Where a decree is for the specific performance of a contract, and the party against whom it has been passed has willfully failed to obey it, it may be executed by his detention in the civil prison, or by attachment of his property, or both. A decree for specific performance operates in favour of both parties. The defendant is as much entitled to enforce it as the plaintiff. Where a decree is for an injunction, and the party against whom it has been passed has willfully failed to obey it, it may be executed by his detention in the civil prison, or by attachment of his property or by both.
Execution of document: Rule 34: Where a decree is for the execution of a document and the judgment-debtor neglects or refuses to obey the decree, the court shall, after giving an opportunity to the decree-holder as well as to the judgment-debtor to prepare a draft of the document in accordance with the terms of the decree execute a document in the prescribed form. It shall have the same effect as the execution of a document by the party ordered to execute the same.
Show cause notice: Once the executing court is satisfied that any defects in the application have been rectified, it provisionally assesses the correct amount for executing the decree in relation to the value of the immovable property, without prejudice to the rights of the parties involved. At this stage, a show-cause notice is issued to the judgment debtor, giving them an opportunity to raise any claims or objections regarding the execution of the decree on the appointed hearing date. A show-cause notice is required only if the execution petition is filed more than two years after the decree's passing or is against a legal representative, assignee, or receiver when the decree-holder has been declared insolvent. However, if the court anticipates unreasonable delays or a threat to justice, it may, at its discretion, proceed with issuing a process instead of a show-cause notice.

Stay on execution: Usually stay of execution is allowed only when appropriate security is furnished by the Judgment debtor. But the proviso to Rule 29 of Order XXI enables the Court to grant a stay without requiring security in case of decrees for the payment of money only after recording its reasons for so doing.
Power of Execution Court: All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. Under Section 47, an executing court has plenary power to determine all questions relating to the execution of a decree. The section, however, applies only to matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree. However, An executing court cannot go behind the decree. It has to execute the decree as it is. It cannot question the correctness or otherwise of the decree. (See: C.F. Angadi v. Y.S. Hirannayya) Where there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court passing the decree, the executing court can refuse to execute the decree. (See: Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan). In Firm Swaroop Singh Sher Singh & Ors. v. Mohan Lal & Anr, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that objections/questions about dispute decided by executing court in between the parties shall not be treated as a suit. The decision of the executing court under section 47 being not a decree cannot be appealed under section 96 CPC.
Process for execution petition:

Identify Decree: The first step is identifying the specific decree or court order that needs to be executed.
Prepare Petition: Here, the execution petition is prepared, detailing the specifics of the decree.
File Petition: The next step involves filing the petition in the appropriate court.
Court Review: The court reviews the petition for its legality and compliance with procedural requirements.
Opponent Response: The respondent or opponent is required to respond to the petition.
Court Decision: Based on the petition and responses, the court makes its decision.
Enforce Decree: The final step is the enforcement of the decree as per the court’s decision.

Limitation: The period of limitation for the execution of a decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) is 12 years from the date of the decree (Art. 136, Limitation Act, 1963). The period of limitation for the execution of a decree for a mandatory injunction is 3 years from the date of the decree (Art. 135, Limitation Act, 1963).

Execution of Arbitration Awards

The procedure for enforcement and of decrees in India is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while that of arbitral awards in India is governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the CPC.

On a decree being passed, proceedings can initiated for enforcement of the decree. Sections 36 to 74 and Order XXI of the CPC set out the provisions in respect of execution. The person in whose favour a decree has passed or an order capable of execution has been made is known as a decree holder while the person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made is known as a judgment-debtor.

On an application made by the decree-holder for the execution of the decree/award, the court may order the execution of the decree/award by one or more of the following modes:

by delivery of any property specifically decreed;
by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any
by arrest and detention in prison;
by appointing a receiver;
by any other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require.

In case of decrees involving payment of money, execution by arrest and detention in civil prison would be ordered only after the judgment debtor is given an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be imprisoned. While issuing such notice, the executing court has to record in writing and be satisfied that the judgment debtor would obstruct or delay the execution of the decree. 2 Such notice may not be necessary if the court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. A warrant for the arrest of the judgment debtor may also be made where an appearance is not made in obedience to the notice if the decree-holder so requires. An executing court cannot go behind the decree, that is, it does not have the power to modify the terms of the decree and must take it as it stands. In case there are multiple decree-holders, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be distributed among all such persons.

In the case of Bharat Pumps and Compressors v Chopra Fabricators, the Supreme Court held that an arbitration award is not included under the definition and meaning of the decree in CPC and so no questions can be raised in the execution of such an award.

In the case of Sanjay Aggarwal v Rahul Aggarwal, the court observed that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a court falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC. It further reaffirmed the principle that objections to arbitral awards must be raised within the parameters set by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Section 47 of CPC cannot be invoked during execution proceedings. The ruling provides much-needed clarity on the procedural aspects surrounding the enforcement of arbitral awards, contributing to the efficiency and efficacy of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India.

International Experience

Unlike the challenges faced by decree-holders (DHs) in India, the enforcement of money decrees in Singapore is more streamlined and efficient. The Singapore government provides several sources of information to aid in enforcing money decrees, including:

E-services from the Ministry of Law's Insolvency Office, offering data on the bankruptcy and solvency status of individuals and corporate entities.
The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) Business Information database, which provides details on an individual's current and past business activities, positions held, shareholdings, and financial information related to companies.

In Singapore, DHs can request the court's assistance in obtaining information about a judgment debtor's (JD’s) assets before initiating legal action. They can file applications for pre-action discovery and interrogatories to identify potential assets and may also request orders to prevent the JD from disposing of assets.

The enforcement of money decrees is governed by the new Rules of Court 2021 and the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021, which took effect on April 1, 2022. These rules offer several enforcement methods, all initiated through a single application that outlines the sequence of actions. The enforcement process, overseen by the Sheriff, has been simplified and typically takes two to eight months to complete. Additionally, the JD may be liable for legal costs, court filing fees, and execution-related expenses, such as advertising and auction fees, as well as the Sheriff's commission, under Order 22 Rule 9 of the 2021 Rules.

Appearance of execution petition in database

National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)

The NJGD data shows the statistics for the pending execution petitions for both civil and criminal cases across different courts High Court, bench-wise and year-wise classified into matter-type, age-wise and institution v. disposal.

Andaman and Nicobar:

91 civil execution petitions pending in Port Blair before Civil Judge Jr Divn, Port Blair, Andaman (7), Civil Judge Sr Divn, Port Blair, Andaman (45) and District and Sessions Judge, Port Blair, Andaman (39).

High Courts: As Case Types

High Court	Case type(s) for execution petition
Allahabad	1 –execution case
Calcutta	2 – execution case and execution case commercial
Gauhati	4 – execution application, execution first appeal, execution second appeal and execution petition
Himachal Pradesh	8 – execution petition in RSA, execution petition in FAO, execution petition, execution petition in CWP, execution petition in Civil Revision , execution petition in RFA, execution petition tribunal and execution petition in RP
Jammu and Kashmir	Srinagar Wing: 6 – execution petition, execution first appeal, execution second appeal, execution application, execution of order/judgment in OWP and execution of order/judgment in SWP Jammu Wing: 7 – execution first appeal, execution second appeal, execution application, execution petition in arbitration application/award, execution of order/judment in OWP, execution petition, execution of order/judgment in SWP
Karnataka	2 – execution first appeal and execution second appeal
Kerala	4 – Execution application, execution first appeal, execution petition and execution second appeal
Madhya Pradesh	3 – Execution case, Execution miscellaneous case and execution objection case
Manipur	4 – Execution application, Execution petition, Execution first appeal and Execution second appeal
Meghalaya	4 – Execution application, execution first appeal, execution petition and execution second appeal
Orissa	4 – Execution application, execution first appeal, execution petition and execution second appeal
Punjab and Haryana	4 – execution first appeal, execution first appeal (commercial), execution petition (commercial) and execution second appeal
Rajasthan	2 – Execution first and second appeal
Telangana	1 – Execution petition
Tripura	2 – Execution petition and execution first appeal
Uttrakhand	1 – Execution decree
Delhi	3 – Execution petition, execution first appeal and execution second appeal

Research that engages with Execution Petition

Focusing on Execution Proceedings

The article titled “Focusing on Execution Proceedings,” written by Sandhya PR and Smita Mutt, examines the slow pace and inefficiencies in the execution of decrees, particularly in the context of arbitration awards, through the lens of a Supreme Court case in India: M/s Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. This case highlights the backlog of pending execution cases in Uttar Pradesh, where many arbitration awards remain unexecuted for years. The authors emphasize how this delay undermines the faith of decree-holders (DHs) in the system.

Key Findings:

Pendency in Execution Proceedings: The case was first filed in 2003 in the Allahabad Small Causes Court, following a favorable arbitration award. However, it has been unresolved for nearly 20 years, illustrating the sluggish pace of such proceedings.
High Court’s Limited Intervention: The Allahabad High Court's direction for the DH to return to the Small Causes Court to assess the urgency of the matter failed to address the systemic delay and did not take into account the Supreme Court's previous rulings in Rahul S Shah v. Jinendra Kumar and Ors, which had laid down guidelines for expediting the execution process.
Need for Systemic Reform: The Supreme Court in Chopra Fabricators called for the collection of statistics and the creation of a roadmap to address the backlog of execution cases. DAKSH, a data analytics organization, analyzed the pending cases in Uttar Pradesh and found that 70,267 execution cases were pending, with over 13,000 cases remaining unresolved for more than a decade.
Execution Data Analysis: DAKSH’s sample study of 5,149 execution cases in Allahabad showed that, on average, it took 4.47 years (1,630 days) to dispose of cases. This indicates that the current execution process is neither prompt nor efficient.
Structural Barriers: The article identifies several structural challenges, such as inadequate data categorization, which obscures the nature of execution proceedings. For example, many cases in the system are not tagged with relevant sections or acts, making it difficult to segregate cases based on their subject matter.
Lack of Linkages Between Related Cases**: Another issue is the absence of proper linkages between related cases, which further delays execution. For instance, in the *Chopra Fabricators* case, the original award was granted in 1992, yet the execution proceedings have dragged on since 2003.
Calls for Legislative Action: Echoing the judgment of Rahul S Shah, the authors stress the need for reforms in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to prevent frustrating delays in execution. The Supreme Court has urged the Law Commission and Parliament to amend the laws governing execution proceedings.

The article concludes that the slow pace of execution proceedings is a critical rule-of-law issue in India, hampering the delivery of justice. It advocates for a holistic reform of the execution process, better data management, and streamlined procedures to ensure that decree-holders can enforce their judgments in a timely manner.

Data Speak: A look at District Courts’ performance during the pandemic

The article “Data Speak” by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy focuses on the performance of District Courts in India during the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights the unprecedented challenges faced by the judiciary due to lockdowns and disruptions, and how courts adapted to ensure accessibility and continued functioning. The pandemic led to delays and reduced case filings and disposals, which had a significant impact on the judicial system, especially at the district level.

Key Findings:

Impact of the Pandemic:

The pandemic forced courts to halt or severely limit their operations. Initially, only ‘urgent matters’ were heard, and it took time to adopt technology for virtual hearings.
The Supreme Court and High Courts managed to continue functioning with reduced capacity, but District Courts faced more severe disruptions. The E-Courts project, which had been developed over the past decade, provided a foundation for the adoption of virtual hearings.

Pendency of Cases:

The article identifies that most issues in the judiciary, particularly case pendency, are concentrated at the district level. Between December 2019 and December 2020, pendency in District Courts increased by 13.45%, the highest since 2013.

Analysis of Data:

The study undertakes a detailed analysis of District Courts during the pandemic (2020 and 2021) and compares it with pre-pandemic years (2018 and 2019). The data was scraped from 642 District Courts and analyzed by dividing the courts into five geographic zones.

Decrease in Case Filings and Disposals:

Case filings saw a 32% decrease during the pandemic, dropping from over 46 million in 2018-2019 to about 31.5 million in 2020-2021.
Case disposals also fell by 42.33%, from nearly 39 million in pre-pandemic years to 22.4 million during the pandemic. This sharp reduction highlights the significant impact of limited court functioning during the crisis.

Prioritization of Bail Applications:

Despite the overall decline in disposals, criminal cases, especially bail applications, were prioritized to decongest prisons. States like Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha saw increased disposal of bail applications compared to pre-pandemic years.

Execution Petitions:

Execution petitions, filed by decree-holders to enforce court judgments, suffered from reduced disposals during the pandemic, leading to delayed justice for many.
Zonal Performance: The report provides specific insights for different zones:

North Zone: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh saw a rise in case filings and a minimal decline in disposals during the pandemic.
North-East Zone: Most District Courts rebounded in 2021, recovering their case filing numbers except in Manipur.
East Zone: Courts struggled, with Chhattisgarh being an exception in recovering case filings in 2021.
South Zone: Most courts recovered filing numbers in 2021, but Kerala continued to see a decline.
West Zone: Courts in Gujarat managed to improve case filings during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels, while Bombay High Court saw continued declines.

Lessons for a Resilient Judiciary: The article suggests several measures to strengthen the judiciary in the face of future disruptions:

Disaster-Resilient Infrastructure: Ensure secure technology for storing case records and making court facilities disaster-proof.
Flexible Court Proceedings: Develop a robust virtual court system accessible nationwide to handle workloads effectively.
Participatory Approach: Engage with stakeholders like litigants and lawyers, and collaborate with disaster management experts to address challenges during crises.

In conclusion, the article underscores the need for systemic improvements in the judicial process, especially at the district level, to mitigate the effects of future disruptions and ensure more effective handling of cases.