Judicial Case Management and Record Requisition in Execution Second Appeals: Commentary on Jaiveer Singh v. Santosh Kumar

1. Introduction

The text provided is a very brief procedural order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Execution Second Appeal No. 3/2022, Jaiveer Singh v. Santosh Kumar, decided (for this particular order) on 25 November 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali.

Although the user’s heading refers to an Orissa High Court matter titled Ramakanta Majhi v. Sanatan Majhi, the judgment text itself clearly pertains to a Rajasthan High Court execution second appeal between Jaiveer Singh and Santosh Kumar. This commentary is therefore based exclusively on the actual text reproduced, i.e., the Rajasthan High Court order.

The order is not a final judgment on the merits but an interlocutory, administrative-procedural direction relating to:

Listing (scheduling) the matter after two weeks, and
Issuing a requisition for the relevant record (“vfHkys[k rych”) in the case.

Because the text is extremely short and does not adjudicate any substantive rights or legal issues, it does not formally lay down a new legal principle or precedent in the doctrinal sense. Nonetheless, it is a useful springboard to discuss:

The nature and procedural framework of an Execution Second Appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC);
The High Court’s powers of case management and control over records of subordinate courts; and
How short, “non-speaking” orders fit into the broader architecture of appellate and execution jurisprudence.

2. Summary of the Order

2.1 Text of the operative directions

Stripping away procedural headings and signatures, the core operative portion (in Hindi) reads:

“i{kdkjku ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds la;qDr fuosnu vuqlkj izdj.k nks lIrkg i'pkr~ lwphc) fd;k tkosA vfHkys[k rych ds laca/k esa Lej.k i= tkjh fd;k tk;sA”

In substance, this translates to:

Listing after two weeks: “On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, let the case be listed after two weeks.”
Requisition of record: “Let a requisition/letter be issued in respect of the record [of the lower court/concerned file].”

2.2 Character of the order

The order is:

Interlocutory and procedural, not disposing of the appeal;
Non-speaking as to merits—no discussion of facts, law, or grounds of the appeal;
Primarily concerned with case management (scheduling and record-calling).

No substantive pronouncement is made on:

The correctness of the execution proceedings below;
The legality of the decree or its mode of execution; or
Any point of law in the sense contemplated under Section 100 CPC (substantial question of law).

3. Procedural and Legal Context

3.1 What is an “Execution Second Appeal”?

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), civil litigation typically proceeds as:

Suit before a trial court → decree/judgment;
First appeal on facts and law (Sections 96, 107 CPC);
Second appeal to the High Court limited to substantial questions of law (Section 100 CPC).

Execution proceedings—by which a decree-holder enforces the decree against the judgment-debtor—are governed by Order XXI (Order 21) CPC. Various orders passed in execution can themselves be appealable, and sometimes there is a further second appeal to the High Court.

An Execution Second Appeal generally refers to a second appeal arising out of an order or decree passed in execution proceedings, where:

A first appellate court has already adjudicated upon an execution matter; and
The aggrieved party approaches the High Court, invoking Section 100 CPC (or analogous provisions, depending on the exact statutory route in that jurisdiction).

The scope of such a second appeal is highly circumscribed:

Confined to substantial questions of law, not mere re-appreciation of evidence; and
Even more constrained because execution is itself a post-decree stage, where most substantive rights have already crystallized at the decree stage.

Thus, S.B. Execution Second Appeal No. 3/2022 represents a highly specialized and narrow appellate remedy within the civil process.

3.2 Interlocutory orders and case management powers

High Courts possess:

Statutory powers under the CPC (Ss. 107, 151, Order 41–43, 45 etc.); and
Constitutional and inherent powers to regulate their own procedure and manage their dockets.

Orders such as:

Granting adjournments at the joint request of parties; and
Calling for records from subordinate courts before final hearing,

are routine manifestations of this case-management authority. Although these orders do not generally create binding precedent, they are integral to the fair and efficient functioning of the appellate system.

4. Analysis of the Order

4.1 Absence of substantive adjudication

The first striking feature is what the order does not do:

It does not frame any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC;
It does not record even skeletal facts of the case.
It does not indicate any provisional opinion on the merits (e.g., stay, interim directions, etc.).

The order is therefore best characterised as a purely procedural listing and record-requisition order. As such, it carries little precedential value in a formal sense; yet, it reflects core procedural norms:

Cooperation with parties (joint request for listing);
Ensuring the record is complete before adjudication; and
Transparency in scheduling by recording the listing direction on the judicial side.

4.2 Joint request by counsel: party autonomy and court’s discretion

The line:

“i{kdkjku ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds la;qDr fuosnu vuqlkj izdj.k nks lIrkg i'pkr~ lwphc) fd;k tkosA”

records that, on a joint request by learned counsel for both sides, the court directed that the case be listed after two weeks.

This illustrates a settled practice:

The court often accommodates consensual scheduling requests from both parties, especially when:
- No rights are immediately prejudiced;
- No urgent interim protection is sought or required; and
- Delay of a short period (e.g., two weeks) is not unjustifiable in the overall context.
However, such accommodation remains subject to the court’s discretion. There is no absolute right to adjournment, even by consent.

In execution matters, where decree-holders seek timely enforcement and judgment-debtors often benefit from delay, adjournments are especially sensitive. The order does not reveal which side is the appellant (decree-holder or judgment-debtor) or whether interim relief is in place; but the fact that both sides jointly requested listing after two weeks suggests no acute urgency was pressed at that stage.

4.3 Requisition of the record: ensuring a proper appellate hearing

The second operative direction is:

“vfHkys[k rych ds laca/k esa Lej.k i= tkjh fd;k tk;sA”

Translated: “Let a requisition be issued regarding the record [of the lower court].”

This step is essential in appeals, especially:

The High Court must often see the entire record of the court below to:
- Appreciate what was actually decided;
- Verify the factual foundation of the execution proceedings; and
- Assess any alleged procedural irregularities or jurisdictional errors.
In an execution second appeal, the record may include:
- The original decree and judgment;
- Execution applications and objections (often under Section 47 or Order 21 CPC);
- Orders of the executing court and the first appellate court; and
- Evidence, if any, recorded in execution-related disputes.

By directing that the record be requisitioned in advance of the next listing, the court is:

Front-loading the preparation for an eventual effective hearing; and
Minimising the risk that the matter will have to be adjourned again merely because the record is not available.

This is a routine but important illustration of judicial case management and due process: parties can only argue properly and the court can only decide fairly when the relevant materials are before it.

4.4 Inherent powers and implied legal foundations

Although the order does not cite provisions, the following legal foundations are implicitly engaged:

Section 107 CPC (Powers of appellate court): includes power to require the production of documents and admission of additional evidence, and by necessary implication to call for the lower court record.
Order XLI (Order 41) CPC: prescribes procedural rules for appeals and contemplates the transmission, custody, and use of lower court records.
Section 151 CPC (inherent powers): empowers the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process; managing listing and ensuring availability of records clearly fall within this ambit.
High Court Rules and Practice Directions: every High Court has its own Rules governing:
- Preparation of paper-books;
- Calling for and returning original records;
- Listing and cause-list management.

Thus, while the order is not reasoned in a doctrinal sense, it is nonetheless legally grounded and structurally important within the system of appellate justice.

5. Precedents and Statutory Framework

5.1 No express precedents cited in the order

The order itself does not cite any prior case law or statutes. It is a short, administrative direction.

Therefore, strictly speaking, there are:

No precedents expressly relied upon by the court; and
No new precedent explicitly created by this order.

Nonetheless, to understand the broader environment in which such an order operates, it is useful to refer to the existing jurisprudence on:

The scope of second appeals; and
The nature of execution proceedings.

5.2 Background jurisprudence on second appeals (general context)

Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have repeatedly emphasized that:

Second appeals under Section 100 CPC are confined to substantial questions of law and are not a third round of factual re-appreciation.

For context (not specifically cited in this order), some leading authorities include:

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722 – clarifying that the High Court cannot interfere in second appeal unless a substantial question of law is clearly articulated and arises on the case.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 – elaborating what constitutes a “substantial question of law” and requiring that it be formulated at the time of admission of the second appeal.

While these judgments relate to second appeals on decrees, the same disciplined approach to the scope of interference generally informs the High Court’s handling of second appeals arising out of execution matters as well.

5.3 Background on execution proceedings

Execution jurisprudence (again, not cited in this order but forming the background legal context) emphasizes:

The executing court must execute the decree as it stands and cannot go behind the decree, except in very narrow situations.
Disputes "relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree" must be raised under Section 47 CPC and are to be decided in execution itself.

For example:

Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 SCC 131 – stressing the importance of expeditious execution of decrees and limiting dilatory tactics in execution.

This doctrinal background underscores why the High Court must ensure it has the complete record before it in an execution second appeal: execution disputes often hinge on a granular understanding of what the decree says and how execution has progressed.

6. Impact and Practical Significance

6.1 Limited precedential value, but procedural significance

Because this is not a merit-based, reasoned judgment, its binding precedential value is minimal. However, its significance lies in illustrating:

The day-to-day operational reality of High Court work: much of judicial functioning consists of such short procedural orders that prepare cases for eventual merit-based adjudication.
The importance of proper record management: a case cannot be fairly decided if the record from the subordinate court is incomplete or unavailable.

6.2 Case management trends in appellate courts

This order is consistent with broader contemporary trends in Indian appellate practice:

Structured listing: specifying the time-frame (here, after two weeks) helps manage expectations and docket flow.
Coordination with counsel: courts often integrate the availability and joint requests of counsel into their scheduling, though subject to the larger public interest in timely justice.
Pre-hearing preparation: calling for records in advance minimises wasteful adjournments on the day of hearing.

Thus, even a routine order like this exemplifies procedural fairness and efficiency, values that are gaining increasing emphasis in Indian judicial administration.

6.3 Execution matters and the problem of delay

From a policy perspective, every adjournment in execution matters has real-world consequences:

Decree-holders are kept out of the fruits of litigation they have already won, sometimes after years of trial and first appeal.
Judgment-debtors may benefit from prolonged uncertainty, but also remain in legal limbo.

However, the short two-week adjournment here is balanced by the proactive step of calling for the record. This suggests a measured approach: minor, consensual delay combined with concrete steps to enable an effective future hearing.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Execution proceedings

Once a civil court passes a decree (for example, directing payment of money or delivery of property), the successful party (the decree-holder) may need the court’s help to actually enforce that decree against the losing party (the judgment-debtor).

All these enforcement steps—attaching property, selling assets, delivering possession, garnishing wages, etc.—are part of execution, governed primarily by Order 21 CPC.

7.2 First appeal vs. second appeal

A first appeal allows re-examination of both facts and law. The appellate court can reassess evidence, interpret contracts, and re-evaluate findings.
A second appeal to the High Court is restricted to substantial questions of law:
- Interpretation of a legal provision;
- Conflict between two lines of authority;
- Misapplication of legal principles to admitted facts, etc.
Pure factual re-appraisal is generally not allowed.

7.3 Execution second appeal

Where an order passed in execution is first appealed and then again appealed to the High Court, the latter is an execution second appeal. It is doubly narrow:

First, because second appeals are inherently restricted to substantial questions of law; and
Second, because execution is itself a post-decree stage, where core rights are already largely settled.

7.4 Interlocutory / procedural order

An interlocutory order is one that:

Does not finally decide the rights of the parties; and
Deals with some step along the way—e.g., adjournments, production of documents, issues relating to procedure, etc.

The order under discussion is quintessentially interlocutory: it only arranges a next date and calls for the record.

7.5 “Listing” and “cause list”

Listing: To “list” a case is to include it on the court’s daily or weekly schedule for hearing.
Cause list: The formal document showing matters to be taken up by a court on a particular day (sometimes with details such as stage, urgency, and advocates’ names).

7.6 Requisition / calling for record

A requisition is a formal communication from the appellate court to a subordinate court or authority to send up the original record or copies relevant to the case:

FIR, charge-sheet, depositions, exhibits (in criminal matters);
Pleadings, evidence, orders, decrees, applications (in civil matters); etc.

Without the record, the appellate court’s ability to review the correctness of the lower court’s decision is inherently limited.

8. Conclusion

The order in Jaiveer Singh v. Santosh Kumar, S.B. Execution Second Appeal No. 3/2022, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dated 25 November 2025, is a non-speaking, interlocutory direction that:

Accommodates a joint request by counsel to list the matter after two weeks; and
Directs that the relevant record be requisitioned in the meantime.

While it does not lay down a new doctrinal rule or precedent in the strict sense, it exemplifies key elements of judicial process:

The High Court’s case-management powers in handling execution second appeals;
The necessity of having a complete and authenticated record before deciding appellate matters; and
The balancing of party convenience with the broader imperative of efficient and fair adjudication.

For a full understanding of the substantive legal issues in this execution second appeal—such as the precise nature of the decree, the execution objections, and any substantial questions of law—one would need access to the final, reasoned judgment (if and when delivered), rather than this isolated interim order. Nonetheless, this order serves as a practical illustration of how appellate courts prepare cases procedurally before engaging with their substantive merits.