Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken an exception to the failure of the Karnataka High Court to furnish details on pendency of execution petitions in the state and sought an explanation from the Registrar General within two weeks.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal by its judgment on March 6, 2025 in the case of “Periyammal (Dead) through LRs & Ors Vs V Rajamani & Anr Etc'' sought details of the pending execution petitions across the country.
Of all the High Courts, the court noted, unfortunately, the High Court of Karnataka has failed to furnish the court with the necessary data in this regard.
"Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka owes an explanation why he has failed to provide us with the necessary information. Two weeks’ time is granted to the Registrar General of the High Court to offer his explanation in this regard,'' the bench said.
The information provided by all other High Courts showed as 8,82,578 execution petitions were pending across the country.
"The statistics which we have received are highly disappointing. The figures of the pendency of the execution petitions across the country are alarming. As on date, 8,82,578 execution petitions are pending across the country. In last six months i.e. after our directions, in all 3,38,685 execution petitions have been decided and disposed of,'' the bench said.
The court granted further six months to all the High Courts to follow up with their respective District judiciary as regards the disposal of the execution petitions.
The court scheduled the matter for further consideration on April 10, 2026.
In its March 6, 2025 judgment, the bench had said, once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts should be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.
The court had also said, after the decree is passed, if it is going to take years and years to execute it, then it makes no sense and would be nothing short of travesty of justice.