Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, December 5
In a severe indictment of the justice delivery mechanism, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the judicial system is painfully slow and sluggish, generating frustration among justice seekers. The High Court also rapped an “executing court” for insensitive approach.
The assertions by Justice HS Madaan, making it clear that not much had changed over the decades, came nearly 150 years after the Privy Council observed that “the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree”.
The observations are significant as obtaining a decree from the courts below seldom comes with a sense of triumph for the winning side, as the real battle begins in getting it executed. The entire process, embroiled in technicalities, takes years and years.
The Supreme Court has already asserted that the decree holders are entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree expeditiously. In its judgment in the case of “Satyawati versus Rajinder Singh and another”, the apex court had also referred to the Privy Council observations made in 1872 on difficulties faced by a decree holder in the execution of a decree.
The case before the High Court has its genesis in a civil suit filed way back in August 2012. The plaintiffs had complained that their neighbours-defendants had encroached upon a part of their land. A decree was passed in their favour on July 3, 2014, after they successfully proved their case in the court.
An execution petition was filed after an appeal preferred against that judgment and decree was dismissed on May 8, 2018. However, till date, the possession of the encroached portion has not been delivered to the decree-holders.
Justice Madaan asserted: “It speaks volumes about the working of our judicial system, which is painfully slow and sluggish creating frustration among the people seeking justice. The judgment debtor (defendants), having lost the litigation in the trial court as well as in first appellate court with no stay order being there in their favour, have successfully stretched the proceedings, getting one adjournment after the other on one pretext or the other and the executing court seems to be granting liberal adjournment without being sensitive to the plight of the decree-holders, who are waiting for justice for over 10 years”.
Justice Madaan added that the executing court was required to take strong and stringent action to ensure that the warrants of possession were executed, rather than passing orders in a mechanical manner that warrants of possession had been received back unexecuted and fresh be issued for the next date of hearing. This, in fact, showed the insensitive approach of the executing court.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Madaan added that it was hoped and expected that the executing court would realise its responsibility and get the decree executed at the earliest.
