JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. An agreement to sell plot No. 484 measuring 100 sq. yards situate in Mohalla-Rajeev Bihar, Hapur, District Ghaziabad, was executed in favour of the petitioner on 17.7.91. Petitioner’s Suit No. 86 of 92 for specific performance of the said agreement was decreed on 24.4.1996. The said decree is said to have attained finality. Petitioner moved application for the execution of the above decree which has been registered as execution case No. 22 of 2005. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in the above execution the parties are represented but the execution is not being decided. He has prayed for direction for time bound decision of the aforesaid execution proceedings. 3. The execution was filed as for back as in the year 2005. The order sheet reveals that the execution has been adjourned for one reason or the other. The petitioner does not appear to be responsible for any delay. 4. The Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 , held that any procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial cannot be regarded as fair and just and it would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, speedy trial which mean reasonable expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. General Rules (Civil)1957 which have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 122 C.P.C. vide Rule 162 contained in Chapter VI provides that execution cases are not to be neglected and prolonged. The relevant part of the aforesaid Rule 162 of General Rule (Civil) is quoted below : “Every presiding Judge shall see that execution cases are not neglected or needlessly prolonged, but disposed of with the same care and regularly as original suits. ——————————” It has always been an endeavour of this Court to ensure that old and execution cases be decided expeditiously for which purpose specific directions to the subordinate Courts have also been issued. 6. The High Court vide G.L. No. 3020/19-O-20 dated 4th September, 1920 had directed District Judges to devote special attention to execution cases and to place them before the Presiding Judge in open Court daily. 6. The High Court vide G.L. No. 3020/19-O-20 dated 4th September, 1920 had directed District Judges to devote special attention to execution cases and to place them before the Presiding Judge in open Court daily. The relevant extract of the aforesaid circular is quoted below : “District Judges should devote special attention to execution cases pending in the Courts directly subordinate to them and take steps to ensure rigid compliance with the rules. Execution cases should be placed before the presiding judge in open Court daily in the same manner as suits and other causes as they are the most important part of civil proceedings.” 6. Another Circular C.L.No. 39/98: Dated 20th August, 1998 was issued taking cognizance of necessity of early disposal of execution cases and it was observed that pendency of execution cases for a very long time not only causes hardship to the decree-holder but also creates unnecessary litigation therefore, effort should be made for early disposal of execution cases. The relevant part of the above circular reads as under : “It has come to the notice of the Court that interest in the disposal of execution cases is not being taken by the judicial officers. Pendency of execution cases for a very long time not only results in hardship to the decree-holder but also creates unnecessary litigation. The Court has taken a decision that by giving due regards to the existing laws and the provisions efforts should be made for early disposal of execution cases.” The Court is at a loss to understand as to despite general directions of the Court to complete execution proceedings at the earliest why the above execution is not being finally decided. There appears to be no legal impediment or any stay from superior Court with regard to above execution proceedings. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar and others v. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoria and others, while dealing with the delay in disposal of execution was shocked to note that the execution was being adjourned for the last 7 years and thus expressing displeasure directed for its disposal within two months from the date of presentation of the order before the Court concerned. 8. 8. Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in Ayodhya Sahai v. District Judge, Jaunpur and another, 1997 AWC (Suppl.) 525, issued a general mandamus to all subordinate Courts and tribunals to decide suits, criminal trials, labour disputes, rent control cases on the basis of time bound programme and to award adverse entries to the defaulting judicial officers. 9. The delay in executing the decree amounts to deny the decree holder the benefit of the decree which is antithesis to justice. In view of above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage with a direction Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hapur, Ghaziabad to decide execution case No. 22 of 2005 Suresh Pal v. Tek Chand, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order may be sent to the District Judge, Ghaziabad, who will ensure that all execution cases included the above one is decided expeditiously as directed and to inform about its decision to High Court. —————