In a significant ruling that brings closure to a decades-old tenancy dispute, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. Santosh Jain and two others against Kewal Kishore and another. The case, revolving around a contested execution of a 1993 eviction decree, has been dragging for over 30 years.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, delivering the judgment on October 17, 2025, observed that the petitioners’ objection challenging the authority of a power of attorney holder was “highly technical and aimed at delaying justice.”
Background
The dispute traces back to the late Aatma Ram, who was a tenant of Shop No. 13/1091 in Bazar Fazalganj, Saharanpur. The landlord, Kewal Kishore, had filed a suit in 1978 for rent arrears and eviction. The suit was decreed in 1993, and even the Supreme Court later upheld the order, dismissing the tenant’s appeal in 2000.
However, execution of the decree essentially the final step to regain possession remained pending since 2002. After Aatma Ram’s death, his heirs, including Pradeep Kumar Jain and later the petitioners, continued to contest the execution on procedural grounds.
The petitioners’ latest objection was that the execution application was signed not by the decree-holder himself but by his father and power of attorney holder, Gurudas Mal, which they argued violated procedural rules under Order XXI Rules 10 and 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Court's Observations
The bench analyzed the provisions of Order XXI, which governs execution proceedings, in detail. Justice Agarwal clarified that while Rule 10 states that a decree-holder “shall apply” for execution, Rule 11(2) explicitly allows such applications to be signed and verified “by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.”
“The argument that only the decree-holder can sign the execution application is thoroughly misplaced,” the Court said. “Rule 10 and Rule 11(2) must be read in harmony and not in isolation.”
The judge noted that Gurudas Mal, the father of the decree-holder, had been handling the matter since 1981 and was clearly familiar with every aspect of the case. His authority, therefore, was valid and within the procedural framework.
Citing the Delhi High Court’s decision in International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2002), Justice Agarwal added that execution applications are distinct from pleadings in a suit and need not be verified with the same technical rigor.
Delay and Frivolous Objections
In a strongly worded section, the Court criticized the petitioners for raising “highly technical” objections aimed solely at delaying the outcome. The judge observed that the execution case had been pending for over 23 years, calling it a textbook example of how procedural tactics can frustrate justice.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Periyammal v. Rajamani (2025 SCC OnLine SC 507), the Court reiterated that execution proceedings should ideally be concluded within six months of filing. Quoting the apex court, Justice Agarwal remarked:
“It is the satisfaction of the Court which is material for accepting or rejecting verification. The executing court must dispose of execution proceedings within six months.”
Decision
Concluding that no case for interference was made out, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt. Santosh Jain and others.
The Court directed the executing court to finalize Execution Case No. 27 of 2002 within two months, stressing adherence to the Supreme Court’s guidelines on speedy execution.
“Looking to the fact that the decree is of 1993 and has already attained finality by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the executing court shall proceed and decide the matter within two months,” the bench ordered.
The ruling effectively clears the path for Kewal Kishore to take possession of the long-disputed Saharanpur shop, marking the end of a 47-year legal battle that began in the late 1970s.
Case Title: Smt. Santosh Jain and 2 Others vs. Kewal Kishore and Another
Case Type & Number: Matters under Article 227 No. 9445 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioners:
- Shri Ashish Agrawal
- Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Counsel for Respondents:
- Shri Pankaj Agarwal