The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the filing of a draft sale deed along with an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, is not mandatory but merely directory in nature. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61 of 2025, arising out of execution proceedings related to a series of Lok Adalat awards.
Background
The appeal was filed by T.K. Narayana Murthy, the appellant and judgment debtor No.1, challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Nellore in E.P. No. 226 of 2023. The execution petition sought enforcement of multiple Lok Adalat awards passed on 16.11.2021 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in the following suits:
- O.S. Nos. 166, 172, 173, 174, 175 of 2017
- P.L.C. No. 174 of 2021
The decree holders had filed the execution petition under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC seeking execution of a registered sale deed for 150 ankanams of land, but the judgment debtors had not complied despite repeated requests.
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant argued that under Rule 34(1) of Order 21 CPC, the decree holder must submit a draft sale deed along with the execution petition and allow objections to be filed, failing which the Execution Court would lack jurisdiction. Counsel for the appellant cited P. Venkanna Chetti v. B. Apparao Naidu [AIR 1959 AP 666] and Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India [(2016) 9 SCC 20] to support this procedural claim.
Respondents’ Reply
Counsel for the respondents countered that submission of a draft sale deed at the initial stage is not compulsory. It was submitted that the appellant later agreed to execute the sale deed on 10.02.2025, but failed to appear on subsequent dates. Consequently, the Execution Court itself executed the sale deed on 14.02.2025, valued at ₹1.26 crore, and duly registered it before the Sub-Registrar, Nellore. Income tax and stamp duties were also paid. The respondents further contended that the appellant suppressed these subsequent developments in the appeal.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined Order 21 Rule 34 CPC and clarified that:
“The expression ‘may’ in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 34 CPC is to be read in its ordinary sense as directory and not mandatory.”
The Bench relied on precedents such as Hameed Joharan v. Abdul Salam [(2001) 7 SCC 573], State (Delhi Admn) v. I.K. Nangia [(1980) 1 SCC 258], and Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur [(2008) 12 SCC 372] to affirm that the use of the word “may” indicates legislative discretion rather than a binding mandate.
Further, the Court noted that the appellant had been given an opportunity to object to the draft deed filed after the 08.08.2024 order, and thus procedural fairness was maintained. The Court distinguished the facts from P. Venkanna Chetti and held that the objections process was duly followed.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench ruled:
“Filing of draft document i.e., sale deed, along with Execution Petition under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC is only directory and not mandatory.”
It concluded that no illegality had been committed by the Execution Court and upheld the order dated 08.08.2024.
Citation: T.K. Narayana Murthy v. Harigopal & Others, C.M.A. No. 61 of 2025, Decided on 10 April 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
