Supreme Court Alarmed by 8.82 Lakh Unexecuted Civil Decree Cases Across India

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed significant concern, labeling as "highly disappointing" and "alarming" the backlog of more than 8.82 lakh execution petitions pending across various courts throughout India.

Execution petitions refer to applications filed by decree holders seeking enforcement of court orders that have been issued in civil disputes.

A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal made these observations while examining compliance with their March 6 directive. This earlier order had instructed all high courts to ensure civil courts under their jurisdiction resolve execution petitions within six months.

The court had previously emphasized that presiding officers would be held accountable for any delays in implementing this directive.

"The statistics we have received are highly disappointing. The figures showing pendency of execution petitions across the country are alarming. Currently, 8,82,578 execution petitions remain pending nationwide," the bench stated.

The justices noted that in the six months following March 6, a total of 3,38,685 execution petitions had been decided and disposed of.

In their October 16 order, the bench emphasized, "As observed in our main judgment, when a decree takes years to execute after being passed, it becomes meaningless and constitutes nothing short of a travesty of justice."

The Supreme Court has again requested all high courts to develop procedures and provide guidance to their respective district judiciary for effective and expeditious resolution of pending execution petitions.

The court observed that "unfortunately, the Karnataka High Court has failed to furnish us with the necessary data in this regard." The top court registry was instructed to remind the Karnataka High Court to provide data regarding execution petition disposals in the past six months and current pendency statistics.

"The Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court owes an explanation for failing to provide the necessary information. Two weeks' time is granted to the registrar general to offer his explanation in this matter," the court stated.

Scheduling the next progress report for April 10 next year, the court expressed its desire for comprehensive figures from all high courts regarding the status of execution petitions as they have been forwarded.

"When this matter is notified again on April 10, 2026, we expect all high courts on their original side to furnish necessary information regarding pending execution petitions and their disposal," the bench added.

On March 6, the top court had noted that execution petitions filed for implementing decrees in civil disputes were typically pending for three to four years.

"If execution petitions remain pending for three-four years, it defeats the very purpose of the decree," Justice Pardiwala had written in the March 6 order.

The verdict arose from a civil land dispute originating in 1980 between two individuals from Tamil Nadu.

The Supreme Court had directed that after collecting data, high courts should issue administrative orders or circulars to district judiciary requiring execution petitions to be decided within six months without exception.

"Otherwise, the presiding officer concerned would be answerable to the high court on its administrative side," the court had stated, highlighting the "long and inordinate" delays by executing courts nationwide in resolving such petitions.

The civil dispute before the bench involved a sale agreement dated June 30, 1980, entered into by Tamil Nadu resident Ayyavoo Udayar regarding a piece of land.

After a dispute arose over the land's title, Udayar filed a civil suit for specific performance against the defendants in 1986 concerning an agreement to sell.

In 2004, the decree-holder filed a petition requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of the property. This petition was dismissed.

The dismissal was challenged through a revision petition, which was allowed in 2006, but the sale deed remained unexecuted.

In 2008, an order for delivery of possession was passed but not implemented.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the high court "committed an egregious error" in its order.