Surendra Singh vs Special Judge Sc/St Act and Another

Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears that Original Suit No. 108 of 1999 was decreed by the Court of first instance on 28.2.2005. The respondent No. 2, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) preferred First Appeal No. 539 of 2005 against the same in the High Court. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2012. After dismissal of the above appeal the petitioner who is the decree holder applied for execution of the same vide Execution Case No. 4 of 2012 Surendra Singh Vs. NOIDA. In the said execution respondent No. 2 took objection that against the judgment and order of the High Court a SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court and the order in the SLP has been reserved.

The petitioner has filed this petition on the allegation that on the basis of alleged pendency of SLP the respondent No. 2 is not allowing the execution to proceed and the court below is unnecessarily avoiding to proceed on the merits of the execution.

On the last occasion, vide order dated 17.4.2014 counsel for the petitioner was directed to bring any material on record to show that any SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner was that no SLP has been filed against the order of the High Court dated 11.10.2012.

Counsel for the respondent is unable to bring any material on record to show that any SLP has been filed or is pending against the order dated 11.10.2012.

There is nothing on record which may justify the delay in disposal of the execution case.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the executing court to proceed with the execution as expeditiously as possible and not to adjourn the same only on the ground that a SLP against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court unless some documentary evidence or reliable material in this regard is produced.