Judgment Intelligence
OtherPeriyammal (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr.
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1889-1891 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 15 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 41(2) and Form No. 16A of Appendix C
Final Outcome
Directions issued to the High Courts, the Union Law Ministry and executing courts; High Courts to answer the Amicus's online questionnaire within four weeks and judicial academies to engage with him; copies to all High Courts; the matter is part heard and listed on 20.11.2026 (paras 3-12).
Key holdings
- 17 High Courts back District Execution Cells, four oppose them, and Rajasthan has not responded (para 2).
- Allahabad, Jharkhand and Tripura to report in three months; 14 others to report progress in two (paras 3-4).
- The Union Law Ministry to file an affidavit on funding and support for the cells (para 6).
- Executing courts must call for asset affidavits under Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC (para 8).
- Cells to prepare execution plans with timelines and help clear bottlenecks (para 8).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The matter is a miscellaneous application in the Periyammal civil appeals, now heard on the pendency of execution proceedings (para 1). Following the Court's order of 19.08.2026, Amicus Curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan placed on record a chart of the reasons for pendency of execution proceedings across courts, a chart of the High Courts' views on District Execution Cells, and three Delhi High Court Single Judge judgments of 2019-2021 (para 1). Seventeen High Courts supported the cells; four (Himachal Pradesh, Madras, Manipur, and Punjab and Haryana) opposed them; three (Gujarat, Orissa and Telangana) were still considering; and no response had come from the Rajasthan High Court (para 2).
Court's Findings
The Court noted that Allahabad, Jharkhand and Tripura were at an advanced stage and asked them to fill vacancies, start functioning and report within three months on the cells' working and impact on pendency (para 3). The other 14 supporting High Courts must evolve a governing framework and operationalise the cells, folding in any existing mechanism for supervising execution, and report progress within two months; the three still considering must give their views by the next hearing (paras 4-5). As some High Courts raised concerns about funding, infrastructure and staff, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice must file an affidavit on measures to support the cells and may name a nodal officer (para 6). As an interim measure, the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, a Civil Judge (Senior Division), is to be each cell's Member Secretary (para 7). Executing courts must call for judgment-debtors' asset affidavits under Form 16A, as Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC requires; the cells must prepare execution plans with timelines, modelled on the Draft Commercial Court Rules, 2021, and help executing courts clear bottlenecks in attachment, sale and release of funds (para 8).
Legal Principle
Executing courts must call for a judgment-debtor's affidavit of assets under Form 16A, as Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC requires, and District Execution Cells are to prepare execution plans with timelines for the executing court, so that execution of decrees is expedited (paras 8, 10).