Report No. 77
11.3. Attention not paid to execution.-
Complaint is quite often made that courts do not devote as much attention to execution cases as they do to regular suits. The reason for that is stated to be that the disposal of an execution case does not add to the unit of cases disposed of the courts. In many States there are instructions or regulations prescribing a number of units for disposal by each judicial officer at the district level. To meet this difficulty, we might either allow some credit, in terms of units or otherwise, for those cases in which the decree-holder gets complete satisfaction of the decree.
In the alternative, we might have a quarterly statement from each of the judicial officers in the district giving statistics about the cases in which there was satisfaction of the decree, either fully or in part, as also the cases in which there was no satisfaction of the decree. The fact that in some courts the percentage of the complete satisfaction of the decree was very high should count as a plus point in favour of the presiding officer of that court.
11.3A. Eviction cases-execution.-
The Commission was informed in one State by judicial officers dealing with urban property eviction cases that it takes normally about two years to recover possession of the demised premises in execution proceedings after the disposal of appeal against eviction order. Successive attempts are made to obstruct the delivery of possession by various persons, mostly in collusion with and at the instance of the judgment-debtor. Such obstructions necessitate filing of applications and replies thereto in the executing court and their disposal, quite often after recording of evidence.
All this highlights the importance of giving due attention to the execution proceedings and the need to give some credit for statistical purposes to the judicial officers for the disposal of these proceedings. To discourage frivolous obstructions, the executing courts have ample power to award suitable costs against those offering such obstructions. In case of contumacious obstruction, the court has also the power under sub-rule (2) of rule 98 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure to order detention in civil prison of the person offering such obstruction.