The Supreme Court has expressed deep concern, labeling the backlog of over 8.82 lakh execution petitions across various courts nationwide as both ‘highly disappointing’ and ‘alarming.’ These petitions are crucial legal requests initiated by individuals or entities (decree holders) to enforce court orders or judgments issued in civil cases. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal made these pointed remarks during a review of adherence to their March 6 order. That previous directive had mandated all High Courts to instruct lower civil courts to resolve execution petitions within a strict six-month timeframe. Furthermore, the bench emphasized that judicial officers responsible for these courts would face accountability for any failure to meet this deadline.
“The statistics presented to us are profoundly disappointing. The national figures for pending execution petitions are truly alarming, with a current count of 882,578 cases awaiting resolution,” the Bench stated, highlighting the urgency of the situation. Despite the March 6 order, only 338,685 execution petitions have been resolved and disposed of in the last six months, a number the court carefully noted. In its October 16 order, the Bench reiterated its stance from the primary judgment: “If a court order, once issued, takes years to be enforced, it renders the entire judicial process meaningless and represents a severe travesty of justice.”
The apex court once more urged all High Courts to develop and implement clear procedures and guidance for their district judiciaries, aiming for the efficient and swift resolution of the lingering execution petitions. However, the Supreme Court pointed out a significant lapse: “Regrettably, the Karnataka High Court has not provided the required data.” Consequently, it instructed its registry to send a formal reminder to the Karnataka High Court, demanding the submission of comprehensive data on both the disposal and outstanding execution petitions for the preceding six months.
The order explicitly stated: “The Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court must provide an explanation for the failure to submit this crucial information. A two-week period has been allocated for the Registrar General to present their justification.” The case is slated for its next hearing on April 10 of the following year. The Bench expressed its clear expectation that by then, all High Courts would furnish complete and accurate statistics on both the total number of pending and disposed execution petitions. “When this matter returns on April 10, 2026, we anticipate that all High Courts, including those acting on their original jurisdiction, will provide the required information concerning both the current pending execution petitions and their respective disposals,” the court mandated.
Previously, on March 6, the court had highlighted that execution petitions, fundamental to enforcing civil decrees, were often languishing for three to four years. Justice Pardiwala, in his March 6 order, had critically remarked: “If these execution petitions continue to pend for several years, it completely undermines the very essence and purpose of a judicial decree.”
These strong observations originated from a protracted civil land dispute between two individuals from Tamil Nadu, a case that astonishingly dates back to 1980. Following data collection, the Bench had previously instructed all High Courts to issue clear administrative directives or circulars to district courts, ensuring that all execution petitions are resolved within six months, “without fail.” It had warned that “otherwise, the presiding officer concerned would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side,” specifically addressing the “long and inordinate” delays by these courts in processing such petitions.
The specific civil case that brought these issues to light involved a sale agreement from June 30, 1980, concerning a piece of land by Tamil Nadu resident Ayyavoo Udayar. After a title dispute emerged, Udayar initiated a suit for specific performance in 1986. By 2004, the decree holder requested a directive for the execution of the sale deed and transfer of possession, a request that was initially denied. While this dismissal was challenged and overturned in 2006, the sale deed remained unenforced. Even an order for delivery of possession in 2008 was, remarkably, not fulfilled. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had made “an egregious error” in issuing the contested order.