Sanjay Kansal And Another v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority And Another

  
  



!

" 
! #$

!%& '( !&) * '

+ ,)- .



/ 01 2 *3 '%-&,

&% % '

&,* 5&,*6* ,1

&3 *%%&

&763%',1 6%-', %1.

6,67,8 '%-&,

&*9'

& %*
 + : ; 

/
 /  / / : ; 

/
 52/ / 

 

    /  / /

# ;$
 

   

 

 ! ! !

# # # $    %

 $ $   #  "



  $ # &  

 ! ! !

  #     $   

'     $  "

"   







*

+ +,- .! !. # #  - / ! !

!

0        

   #    , %

   $ 

  1   ("

   2

 3 $ 45 

$ 6 7 
 

     # $ $

45 

$ 6 7  

( $ &     3 $   "23. This court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Counsel in The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga v. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing 14 which observed that the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This Court made a similar observation in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna15, wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and the Parliament should bestow their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful execution.

The Court opined that the Law Commission or the Parliament must give effect to appropriate recommendations to ensure such amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the adjudication of a suit, so as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to (1871472) 14 Moore's I.A. 605 (2009) 9 SCC 689 the stage of securing relief after execution proceedings.

becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice.

42.12 The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay."

.

7  #  # 

   ("

   # $ $

45 

$ 6 7

/ 6 $ 

 "    # /  / /$    !

,)- .



#52/ / $ harsha   !

0 2 8  9 0  



*