Delay, Suppression, and Concurrent Findings Before the Supreme Court
A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy, not a continuation of the appellate process. The Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against entertaining SLPs that seek to reopen concurrent findings of fact, particularly when such petitions are filed after execution proceedings have commenced.
This article examines how decree-holders can effectively oppose execution-stage SLPs at the notice stage, focusing on delay, suppression of material facts, and abuse of process, supported by settled Supreme Court jurisprudence.
1. Caveat as a Procedural Safeguard at the Supreme Court
Filing a caveat is a critical step when execution proceedings are underway. A caveat ensures that:
-
No ex-parte stay is granted,
-
The respondent is heard at the admission stage,
-
The Court is informed of the true procedural posture of the case.
The Supreme Court has recognised that execution-stage interventions must be approached with restraint, as indiscriminate stays defeat the very purpose of adjudication
(Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705).
2. Execution-Stage SLPs and Abuse of Process
Where a party approaches the Supreme Court after participating in execution proceedings, such conduct is often viewed as an abuse of process.
The Court has repeatedly held that litigation must attain finality and that execution is not a fresh round of adjudication
(Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009) 9 SCC 689).
An SLP filed only after coercive steps in execution is a strong indicator of a dilatory strategy, not a genuine legal grievance.
3. Inordinate Delay and Lack of Bona Fides
Delay is a decisive factor in discretionary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has made it clear that:
-
Delay must be explained day-to-day,
-
Vague or omnibus explanations are insufficient,
-
Equity is unavailable to litigants who sleep over their rights.
In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer ((2013) 14 SCC 81), the Court held that limitation is founded on public policy and that courts cannot condone delay merely on sympathetic grounds.
Where petitioners actively litigate before lower courts during the period of alleged difficulty, claims of inability to approach the Supreme Court are treated as inherently false.
Delay combined with continued participation in execution proceedings is a decisive indicator of mala fides.
4. Suppression of Material Facts Defeats Article 136 Relief
Article 136 is rooted in equity and fairness. Suppression of material facts disentitles a party from relief, regardless of the merits claimed.
In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India ((2007) 8 SCC 449), the Supreme Court held that:
“A litigant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to any relief, discretionary or otherwise.”
Similarly, in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. ((2010) 2 SCC 114), the Court emphasised that clean hands are a prerequisite for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.
5. Concurrent Findings of Fact and the Limited Scope of Article 136
The Supreme Court has consistently held that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is:
-
perversity,
-
patent illegality, or
-
gross miscarriage of justice.
In Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini ((2009) 5 SCC 264), the Court reaffirmed that re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible under Article 136.
Allegations that evidence was “ignored” must be tested against the judgment record; mere disagreement with conclusions does not raise a constitutional issue.
6. Procedural Non-Compliance Is Not a “Hyper-Technicality”
Failure to comply with mandatory evidentiary requirements cannot be blamed on courts.
The Supreme Court has clarified that:
-
Non-examination of mandatory witnesses,
-
Failure to prove documents as per statute,
-
Refusal to enter the witness box,
justify adverse inference
(Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573).
Calling such failures “hyper-technical” is legally untenable.
7. Equity Favors the Decree-Holder at the Execution Stage
Once a decree has survived multiple levels of scrutiny, equity decisively favours enforcement.
In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj ((2014) 16 SCC 204), the Supreme Court warned against granting stays that frustrate execution and encourage obstructionist tactics.
The Court has repeatedly stressed that successful litigants should not be made to suffer endless litigation.
Conclusion
Execution-stage SLPs filed after long delays, accompanied by suppression of facts and attempts to reopen settled findings, undermine the finality of judicial proceedings.
Effective opposition at the notice stage requires:
-
Prompt filing of caveats,
-
Focus on conduct, delay, and suppression,
-
Emphasis on concurrent findings and settled law.
The Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 is guided by fairness, finality, and judicial discipline—principles that strongly disfavour last-minute attempts to derail execution of lawful decrees.
About Legal Light Consulting
Legal Light Consulting provides practical insights on litigation strategy, appellate practice, and procedural law, enabling practitioners to navigate complex legal challenges with clarity and precision.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Special Leave Petitions, Caveats, and Execution-Stage Challenges
(For Educational Purposes Only)
Q1. What is a Special Leave Petition (SLP)?
An SLP is a discretionary remedy under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, allowing the Supreme Court to intervene in exceptional cases. It is not a matter of right and is not intended to function as a regular appellate forum.
Q2. Can the Supreme Court re-examine facts in an SLP?
Generally, no. The Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts unless there is clear perversity, gross illegality, or miscarriage of justice. Mere disagreement with factual conclusions is insufficient.
Q3. What is meant by an “execution-stage SLP”?
An execution-stage SLP refers to a petition filed after a decree has attained finality and execution proceedings have begun. Courts treat such petitions with caution, particularly when the petitioner has already participated in execution proceedings.
Q4. Why is filing a caveat important at the Supreme Court?
A caveat ensures that:
-
No ex-parte stay is granted,
-
The respondent is heard before any interim order,
-
The Court is informed of the true procedural status of the case.
Filing a caveat is especially important when execution of a decree is underway.
Q5. Does filing an SLP automatically stay execution of a decree?
No. Filing an SLP does not operate as a stay. Execution continues unless the Supreme Court passes a specific interim order staying enforcement.
Q6. How does delay affect the maintainability of an SLP?
Delay is a critical factor. An SLP filed after substantial delay must be accompanied by a credible, day-to-day explanation. Vague or unsupported explanations significantly weaken the petitioner’s case, particularly where the delay appears strategic.
Q7. Can participation in execution proceedings affect an SLP?
Yes. Active participation in execution proceedings during the period of alleged difficulty can undermine claims of inability to approach the Supreme Court and may indicate that the SLP is filed primarily to delay enforcement.
Q8. What is “suppression of material facts” in an SLP?
Suppression occurs when a petitioner:
-
Conceals relevant proceedings,
-
Withholds admissions or findings,
-
Presents selective or misleading facts.
Such conduct seriously affects credibility and can lead to dismissal of the petition at the threshold.
Q9. Can procedural lapses be termed “hyper-technical” by the petitioner?
Courts generally reject this argument where statutory requirements are not complied with. Failure to:
-
Examine required witnesses,
-
Prove documents as per law,
-
Enter the witness box when claiming rights,
is treated as a litigant’s failure, not a judicial error.
Q10. What is an adverse inference, and when is it drawn?
An adverse inference may be drawn when a party:
-
Avoids entering the witness box,
-
Withholds best available evidence,
-
Fails to substantiate claims within its knowledge.
This is a well-established principle in civil adjudication.
Q11. Why do courts discourage execution-stage interference?
Courts discourage such interference to:
-
Preserve finality of litigation,
-
Prevent abuse of process,
-
Protect the rights of successful litigants.
Unwarranted stays at the execution stage undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Q12. What factors usually weigh against grant of stay in execution-stage SLPs?
Some common factors include:
-
Long and unexplained delay,
-
Active participation in execution proceedings,
-
Suppression of material facts,
-
Concurrent findings of fact by multiple courts,
-
Absence of any substantial question of law.
Q13. Can equity override settled legal principles in an SLP?
Equity operates within the framework of law. Courts do not grant equitable relief to litigants who approach with unclean hands, suppress facts, or seek to delay lawful execution.
Q14. What is the key takeaway for decree-holders?
Decree-holders should:
-
Monitor appellate filings closely,
-
File caveats promptly,
-
Highlight delay, suppression, and execution status at the notice stage.
These steps significantly improve resistance to unwarranted stays.
Q15. Is this FAQ legal advice?
No. This FAQ is provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Readers should seek independent legal advice for specific factual situations.
About Legal Light Consulting
Legal Light Consulting aims to promote legal awareness by simplifying procedural law, appellate practice, and litigation strategy for practitioners, students, and litigants.
