NEW DELHI: Nearly four decades after a civil judge granted permanent prohibitory injuction on a plot in Noida, the petitioner’s son turned up in Supreme Court saying the decree had not been executed and remained pending, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. The decree was confirmed by high court and Supreme Court, while Noida authority’s appeals and its objections to execution of the decree were turned down. The CJI-led bench appreciated his predicament, but said, “The petitioner must approach the HC again seeking a direction for early conclusion of the execution proceedings. We cannot entertain a writ petition seeking early hearing of an application”.Noida authority kept raising objections but all of them were rejected by courtsThe long chain of events began in 1987 when petitioner Jaichand’s late father filed a civil suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction relating to a plot in Noida. A civil judge granted it in Sept 1988. The Noida authority challenged it unsuccessfully before the Allahabad HC and then in the SC which in Sept 1997 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree. The petitioner filed for execution of the decree in 1997. Noida raised one objection after another, all of which were rejected. Frustrated, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in 2000 before the HC and sought demolition of structures raised by Noida on the plot. In 2003, he filed another plea seeking early execution of the decree. In 2006, the HC frowned upon Noida’s conduct and directed day-to-day hearing on the execution application without entertaining a request for adjournment.The petitioner’s counsel told the bench, “Despite the decree having attained finality and the HC directing expeditious day-to-day hearing on the application, the execution remains undecided, resulting in denial of fruits of the decree and continued violation of the petitioner’s right over the land.” The case showed how the harrowing experience a litigant undergoes in a civil case remains unchanged in over 150 years despite repeated pronouncements against delay in execution of decrees. In 1872, the Privy Council said “the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree”. In 1925, in another judgment, the Privy Council cautioned courts against delay in execution of a decree, saying judicial forums must not be the platform to deny the fruits of justice to litigants.
