Delhi High Court – Orders
Hari Kishan Madan And Anr. & Anr vs Suresh Gupta on 17 April, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.F.A. 7/2022
HARI KISHAN MADAN AND ANR. & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
SURESH GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aditya Kala, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 17.04.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 24564/2026 (exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed of.
EX.F.A. 7/2022 & CM APPL. 24563/2026(corrections/modifications of
order dated 03.02.2026)
3. The present appeal was listed before this Court on an application, CM
APPL. 24563/2026, preferred by the appellants seeking the rectification of
order dated 03.02.2026 passed by this Court by mentioning that the interim
order dated 28.04.2023 would continue till the next date of hearing. The order
dated 03.02.2026 reproduced as under: –
“1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. None appears on behalf of the parties.
3. In the interest of justice, adverse orders are deferred.
4. Re-notify on 27.07.2026.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
4. Learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent on an
advance notice.
5. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the present appeal
is taken up for hearing.
6. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
10.12.2021 passed by learned ADJ-02, West, in Execution No. 699/2018
titled as, “Suresh Gupta v. Hari Kishan Madan & Anr“.
7. The primary contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the
latter are in possession of property bearing No. 261, Sanik Enclave, Mohan
Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, which is a built up property whereas, the
decree holder/respondent had filed the Execution with respect to property
No.261A, Khasra No.5/25, Sainik Enclave, New Delhi, in terms of judgment
and decree dated 30.07.2016. It is the case of the appellants that said property
No.261A is distinct, and a vacant land, and therefore, in garb of execution
filed by the respondent-judgment debtor, the said property cannot be made
subject matter of the execution proceedings. Learned counsel for the
appellants has placed reliance on an Authorization Slip dated 23.09.2021
issued by Assistant Director, PM-UDAY Cell (PC-106), Dwarka-II, DDA,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, to claim that the said property bearing No.261
was registered in the name of appellant No.2 with DDA. Learned counsel for
the appellants has further submitted that the said plot of land, i.e., plot No.
261, Sanik Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, measuring 200
sq. yards, was purchased by appellants being registered in the name of
appellant No.2 through proper documents, and that the appellants had been in
long and continued possession of the same for 25 years. It is further submitted
that the appellants are paying house tax of property/plot No.261 since 2004-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
05, and electricity bills since 2016.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits
that the present appeal is an abuse of process of Court, and the learned
Executing Court has rightly, after considering the merits, dismissed the
objections filed by the appellants.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue with
regard to Plot Nos. 261-261A had already been adjudicated by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in an appeal, RFA 631 of 2016, filed by the
respondent herein assailing judgment and decree dated 30.07.2017 which was
decided vide judgment dated 13.02.2017 by learned Coordinate Bench of this
Court. It is pointed out that a SLP (C) No.9258/2018 preferred by the
appellants against the said judgment in RFA was also dismissed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 23.04.2018. It is submitted that learned
Execution Court after recording the observations made by this Court in RFA,
which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP, has passed the
impugned order dated 10.12.2021. It is further submitted that despite the
decree being passed in 2017, the appellants have ensured that the same is not
executed by one way or the other.
10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
11. It is noted that the respondent had filed a suit, Suit No.611217/16, on
16.02.2012 seeking permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants
with regard to the plot bearing No.261A, area measuring 190 sq. yards in
situated in Khasra No.5/25, Sanik Enclave, Mohan Garden, New Delhi. In the
said suit, the appellants had filed a counter claim, seeking relief of permanent
injunction restraining the respondent/Decree holder (plaintiff in the original
suit). The said suit filed by the respondent-original plaintiff was dismissed by
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
the learned ADJ vide judgment dated 30.07.2016, and a decree sheet was
prepared in pursuance of the said judgment, in favour of the counter-
claimants/appellants which is reproduced as under: –
” ”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
12. The aforesaid judgment and decree was assailed in appeal, RFA
No.631 of 2016, by the respondent/decree holder, and learned Single Judge
of this Court vide a judgment dated 13.12.2017 set aside the aforesaid
judgment passed by the learned ADJ. The said judgment of the learned Single
Judge was challenged by the appellants herein by way of SLP bearing No.
SLP (C) No. 9258/2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2018.
Thereafter, the subject execution petition, Ex.No.699/2018, was filed by the
respondent/decree holder. In the said execution petition, the appellants had
filed their objections on the similar lines as have been raised before this Court
in the present appeal. The said objections were dismissed by learned
Executing Court by way of the impugned order by observing as under: –
“6. Perusal of following paragraphs of the judgment dated
13.12.2017 of Hon’ble High Court shows that the property
numbers 261 and 261A are not two properties and rather, it is
only one property to which two numbers have been given.
“10. By impugned judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2016
the Trial Court has decreed the Counter Claim of the
respondents not qua property No. 261 claimed by them but in
respect of property no.261 A, Sainik Enclave, New Delhi
claimed by the appellant and dismissed the suit of the
appellant.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
trial court had erred in decreeing the respondent s
counter claim for plot No.261A of the ‟ appellant where the
counter claim was with respect to plot No.261. He argued
that appellant is the owner in possession of plot no.261A
measuring 190 square yards, Sainik Enclave, New Delhi
whereas the respondent has claimed that he is the owner of
the plot no.261 measuring 200 square yards out of
Khasra no. 5/25, Razapur, Delhi forming part of Sainik
Enclave, Mohan Garden, Delhi. The learned counsel arguedThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
that it was never the case of the respondents that
they were the owner of the plot no. 261A which is in fact
the plot of the appellant.
16. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the copy
of Sale Deed i.e. EXDW1/2 executed by Niyadar Singh for
himself and as attorney of Shri Bhagwan in favour
of Khairati Lal on 06.10.1986, registered on 09.10.1986
in respect of land measuring 567 Square Yards out of
Khasra No.5/25 Village Rajapur Khurd, Delhi for a
consideration of Rs.20,000/- does not mention any plot
No.261 as claimed by the respondents. This Sale Deed
has not been proved and it was never put to Niyadar Singh
who appeared as DW3. Its attesting witness was also not
examined. He argued that the document has not been
proved in accordance with law.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued
that the documents of title i.e. the General Power of Attorney
and the Will were not only executed in favour of the
appellant but were also registered in respect of the property
in question i.e. plot no. 261A whereas the copies of the
documents placed on record by the respondent are
merely photocopies. He argued that neither of the
documents was registered in favour of the respondents
in respect of plot no.261 nor the documents were proved
and tendered in evidence and the trial court has committed a
patent error in not relying upon the registered document
executed in favour of the appellant and placed reliance only
on the photostat copy of the documents placed on
record by the respondents which are just waste piece of
papers and are not at all admissible in evidence. He
emphasized that the Trial Court has committed an error in
decreeing the claim of the respondents in respect of plot
No.261A which was not even claimed by them and in fact
they claimed relief with respect of plot No.261 for which
they failed to prove their entitlement.
24. Be that as it may be, it would not be expedient in the
interest of justice to set aside the judgment on this score.
However, the points for consideration in this appeal are:-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
(I). Whether the respondent/counter claimant/ defendant
is the owner and in possession of plot no. 261/261A
measuring 200 square yards out of Khasra no.5/25,
Village Rajapur forming part of Sainik Enclave, Delhi.
(II). Whether the plaintiff/appellant is owner in
possession of plot no.261 A out of Khasra no.05/25, village
Rajapur. Point No. I
25. It has been the case of the respondents that on
6th October, 1986 Niyadar Singh for himself and his
attorney Sri Bhagwan sold land measuring 567 square yards
out of Khasra no.05/25 of village Razapur which now forms
part of Abadi of Mohan Garden to Khairati Lal who in
turn sold plot no. 261 measuring 567 square yards to one
R.P. Aggarwal on 20th June, 1997. They claimed that the
respondent no.2 purchased the said plot no. 261 measuring
200 square yards in the measurement of 45″ x 40″ out of
Khasra no.5/25 from R.P. Aggarwal on 20th June,
1997. In the counter claim the respondents have given the
boundaries of the plot purchased by them which reads as
under:-
“East : Road 20 ft.
West: Remaining part of plot no.261 of Mukesh
Sharma,
South: Road 25 Ft.
North: Plot of Mukesh Sharma"
26. Admittedly, it was a vacant plot. The respondents
claimed ownership in name of respondent no.2 in
respect of plot No.261. The respondents had never
claimed that they are the owners in possession of plot
no.261A either in their pleadings or in their documentary or
oral evidence. 27. Consequently, the judgment of the
trial court restraining the Appellant from interfering with the
possession of the respondents in respect of Plot No.
261A measuring 190 Square Yards, Plot No. 5/25,
Sainik Enclave, New Delhi cannot be sustained and is
liable to set aside.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
34. Learned Additional District Judge without reading
deposition of DW-1 and looking into exhibited documents
observed that the respondents have relied upon the documents
Ex.DW1/1 and DW 1/25 to prove their ownership in relation
to the suit property. DW1/1 is in fact the site plan of
plot no. 261 in which even the name of Draughtsman is not
mentioned. No one has signed this document. This is nothing
but a waste piece of paper. DW 1/25 is the copy of the
information supplied under RTI Act by the office of Additional
DCP of Police cum Central Public Information Officer, West
District regarding the inquiry conducted by SI Ram Bhau.
Documents Ex.DW1/3 to Ex.DW1/7 were de–exhibited then
and there by the Ld. ADJ on 21.07.2014 in the statement of
DW1 in examination–in–chief and they were marked
as Mark A to Mark E. Ex.DW1/2 is copy of House Tax
Receipt and Ex.DW1/3 is copy of an application for
an electricity connection by the Respondent No.2.
Obviously, these documents are not title documents. In fact,
respondent no.2 mentioned 25 exhibits in her affidavit
tendered in evidence on 21.07.2014 in the Trial Court. In her
statement, she tendered documents Ex.DW1/1 to DW1/25. An
error was noticed by Trial Court immediately and the
documents Ex.DW1/3 to DW1/7 were de–exhibited and put
as Mark A to E. It was observed that Ex.DW1/14 to
18, Ex.DW1/21 and Ex.DW1/22 were already part of
the appellant s evidence a ‟ Ex.PW1/D2 to D6 &
PW1/D7 & D8. Document Ex.DW1/23 was de-exhibited
and marked as Mark H . Therefore on the record only the
following the ‟ documents of respondents were exhibited: Âi. DW1/2 – Photostat copy of Sale Deed dated
06.10.1986.
ii. DW1/8 to DW1/11 – Photostat copies of sale
documents in favour of Respondent No.2 by R.P.
Aggarwal.
iii. DW-1/12 – Copy of House Tax Receipt dated
28.02.2017.
iv. DW1/13 – Copy of application by respondent no. 2 to BSES
for electricity connection.
v. DW1/24 – Copy of proposal of water bill.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
vi. DW1/25 – Copy of inquiry report dated 01.03.2012
under RTI Act.
35. It appears that the Ld. ADJ did not bother
himself to peruse the file before adjudicating the issue.
He has failed to apply his Judicial approach as to what
documents are exhibited and if these are available on the
record. There are only nine documents which were
exhibited with objections of appellant as DW1/2, DW1/8
to 11, DW1/12, DW1/13, DW1/24 & DW1/25. Rest of
the documents were either put as „Mark” on being deÂ-
exhibited in the statement of DW2.
36. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that the
respondents have been in possession of the suit plot is
perverse, whimsical and without any evidence which cannot
be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
53. In the light of these observations also, the
appellant has been able to prove that his vendor
Niyadar Singh had executed sale documents Ex.PW 1/1 to
PW 1/5 in his favour in respect of suit property. The
sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- was paid to Niyadar
Singh by the appellant and the possession of plot
no.261A area measuring 190 square yards (46 ft x37 ft)
out of Khasra no.05/25 in village Razapur, Sainik Enclave,
New Delhi was delivered to him. Therefore, an interest,
within the meaning of Section 202 of the Contract Act, in the
plot no.261A was created in favour of the appellant
particularly when the Power of Attorney is irrevocable on
payment of entire sale consideration and receiving
physical possession of the suit property. Hence, in the light of
this discussion, the appellant has been able to show
that by the documents Ex. PW 1/1 to PW 1/5 he had acquired
a valuable interest in the property in question though he might
not have become technically a full owner of the property for
want of a proper sale deed. Therefore, the appellant
is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in his favour
and against the respondents. The suit of the appellant for
permanent injunction is hereby decreed in his favour
restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
54. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs
throughout and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
dated 30.07.2016 is set aside. The Counter claim of the
respondents is dismissed. The suit of the appellant for
Permanent Injunction is decreed with costs in his favour
and against the respondents restraining them from
dispossessing him from the plot in question and from
interfering in the peaceful possession thereof of the appellant
in any manner”.
7. The facts regarding ownership and property are
mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint. In corresponding para no.
1 of reply on merits of written statement, the JD did not take the
objection that they had no connection with the property
no. 261A. Rather, they took the plea that plaintiff was not the
absolute owner of plot no. 261A and that he did not purchase the
same from the erstwhile owner Mr. Niyadar Singh on
11.11.1998. If this property number 261A was different
from their property no. 261, they should have mentioned
in that paragraph that they had no connection with property no.
261A. But these vital facts are missing in that paragraph.
If the JDs were of the view that their property no. 261 was
different from the property no. 261A of the D.H, they should have
moved application under order 1 rule 10 CPC for deletion of their
names from the array of the parties on the ground that they had
nothing to do with the subject property. But they did not move
such application.
8. By allowing the counter of the JDs, the trial court passed
decree in their favour regarding property no. 261A. If the JDs
were of the view that they had nothing to do with property no.
261A, they should have filed an appeal or revision in the
Hon’ble High Court. But they did not do so and instead, the
appeal was filed by the D.H. During pendency of appeal, the JDs
did not move application under section 152 CPC before the trial
court for rectification in the judgment and decree on the ground
that the correct number of the property should be 261 and not
261A. They opened their mouth first time to that effect when the
execution petition was filed after passing of judgment against
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
them by the Hon’ble High Court. This chronology of events
suggests that the objections taken by the JDs are malafide and
have been taken just to delay the execution petition.
9. As per the version of the JDs, the erstwhile owner was Niyadar
Singh who sold 567 sq. yards of land in Khasra no. 5/25 to Sh.
Khairati Lal and Sh. Khairati Lal sold that land to Mr. R.P. Aggarwal.
Out of that land, Mr. R.P. Aggarwal sold only 200 sq. meters to J.D.
No. 2 and retained the rest of the land.
Usual practice followed by the landowners is that the original
plot number is retained by them whether they remain in small portion
or larger chunk of the land. In the case in hand, small chunk was sold
to JD No. 2 and larger chunk was retained by the land owner. In that
eventuality, there is every likelihood that the original number of the
plot was retained by its owner Mr. R.P. Aggarwal. In that
circumstance, the next number was to be given to the property
purchased by the J.D No. 1 and there can be no number than 261A
because that number comes after 261 in chronological order. Due to
this reason also it is held that number of the property is 261A.
10. In view of above discussion, the objections are dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on an
Authorization Slip dated 23.09.2021 given by DDA in support of their case.
Relevant portion of the said Authorization Slip has been reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of completeness: –
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
14. At this stage, it is relevant to note that this document was registered
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
with the concerned Authority/DDA on 23.09.2021 after dismissal of SLP filed
on behalf of the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.04.2018,
and after filing of the objections by the respondent/decree holder. The said
document would reflect that the same was registered under Section 3 of
National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of
Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Act, 2019. It is pertinent to that the said
Act was introduced with the following object: –
“An Act to provide special provisions for the National Capital
Territory of Delhi for recognising the property rights of resident in
unauthorised colonies by securing the rights of ownership or transfer
or mortgage in favour of the residents of such colonies who are
possessing properties on the basis of Power of Attorney, Agreement
to Sale, Will, possession letter or any other documents including
documents evidencing payment of consideration and for the matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
15. Section 3 of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of
Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Act, 2019, reads as
under: –
“3. Recognition of property rights.–(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) and the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) as applicable to the National
Capital Territory of Delhi or any rules or regulations or bye-laws
made there under and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & others,
dated the 11th October, 2011, the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, regularise the transactions of
immovable properties based on the latest Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter and other documents
including documents evidencing payment of consideration for
conferring or recognising right of ownership or transfer or mortgage
in regard to an immovable property in favour of a resident of an
unauthorised colony.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
(2) The Central Government may, by notification published in the
Official Gazette, fix charges on payment of which transactions of
immovable properties based on the latest Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter and other documents
including documents evidencing payment of consideration for
conferring or recognising right of ownership or transfer or mortgage
in regard to an immovable property in favour of a resident of an
unauthorised colony through a conveyance deed or authorisation slip,
as the case may be.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 27 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the stamp duty and registration charges
shall be payable on the amount mentioned in the conveyance deed or
authorisation slip, as the case may be.
(4) Any resident of an unauthorised colony having registered or un-
registered or notarised Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Will,
possession letter and other documents including documents
evidencing payment of consideration shall be eligible for right of
ownership or transfer or mortgage through a conveyance deed or
authorisation slip, as the case may be, on payment of charges referred
to in sub-section (2).
(5) No stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable on any
previous sale transactions made prior to any transaction referred to in
sub-section (4).
(6) The tenants, licensees or permissive users shall not be considered
for conferring or recognising any property rights under this Act.”
16. Thus, it can be seen from the aforesaid document and the relevant
provisions of the Act under which said document has been issued that the
same was issued on the basis of the documents which had been held to be
invalid by learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment passed in RFA
preferred by the respondent, as noted hereinbefore, in the impugned order.
Therefore, reliance on the said document by the appellants is completely
misplaced, and they cannot derive any benefit therefrom.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
17. Learned Executing Court in the impugned order has correctly analysed
the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in RFA 631 of
2016, and has extensively quoted relevant portions of the judgment passed in
RFA. As can be seen from the record, the appellants were beneficiary of the
judgment passed by the learned ADJ, whereby they were granted permanent
injunction with respect to subject plot, i.e., Plot no. 261A. They, however, did
not raise the issue that the said plot is not 261A and was, in fact, 261. It is
only after the dismissal of their SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
appellants chose to take the aforesaid stand in the execution proceedings
initiated by the respondent/decree holder (Original Plaintiff).
18. Learned counsel for the respondent has further drawn attention of this
Court to an order dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in RFA
631/2016. Relevant portion of the said order dated 21.11.2016 passed in RFA
631/2016 read as under: –
“CM APPL. 31465/2016 (stay)
1. This application has been filed by the appellant praying inter alia
for staying the operation of the impugned judgment and decree,
whereunder the suit for permanent injunction instituted by the
appellant against the respondents was dismissed and the counter claim
for the relief of permanent injunction filed by the
respondents/defendants was allowed.
2. Mr. Bandhu, learned counsel for the respondents states that the
respondents have raised construction of one room at the suit premises,
which they are occupying. He states that the respondents shall
maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit
premises during the pendency of the present appeal.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present application is
disposed of.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
19. Thus, a statement was given on behalf of the appellants before learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court that they shall maintain status quo with regard
to the title and possession of the suit premises during the pendency of the
appeal. The suit premises is, admittedly, property bearing No. ‘261A’. It is
apparent that the appellants did not raise this objection that plot Nos. 261 and
261A are different. This objection has been taken only to stall the execution
proceedings, which were filed on 11.05.2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Miscellaneous Application Nos.1889-1881/2025 in C.A. No. 3640-
3642/2025, case titled as ‘Periyammal (Dead Thr. LRs) & Ors. v. V.
Rajamani & Anr.’ vide order dated 10.04.2026 has flagged and noted the
issue of pendency of execution petitions across the country.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar &
Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 289, in similar circumstances, had observed and held as
under: –
“19. We have noted hereinabove that the delivery warrant, consequent
to which the appellant came to be put in possession of the property,
was challenged before the High Court in Civil Revision No. 5947 of
2002. By the impugned order the High Court without considering the
earlier orders of the courts including that of the High Court made in
revision filed against the delivery warrant, proceeded to consider the
objection of the respondent as to the identity of the suit property as if
it was being raised for the first time in the execution petition. It is
proceeding on that basis the High Court in the impugned order
observed:
“It was imperative for the learned executing court to
have considered the objections raised by the present
petitioners before taking steps to issue warrants of
possession, with a direction that the possession be
delivered as per the site plan. In my opinion, the learnedThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
executing court committed a patent illegality in ordering
the issuance of warrants of possession, vide order dated
3-12-2002.”
20. This opinion of the High Court, in our considered view, is wholly
erroneous for more than one reason. The objection that the learned
Judge referred to in the impugned order raised by the respondent
herein was in regard to the correctness of the site plan. As noted
earlier, this very issue was specifically raised in the original ejectment
proceedings and was held against the respondents based mainly on the
admission of the first respondent which we have already extracted
hereinabove. At the cost of repetition, we must restate that this
question of identity of the property was never again raised in the
appeal before the Appellate Authority, in the revision before the
revisional authority, namely, the High Court or in the SLP before this
Court. In such circumstances, we fail to understand how this very
issue can be reagitated in the execution proceeding by the tenants. It
is also to be noticed that the executing court has rightly observed that
reopening of this issue would amount to asking that court to go behind
the decree which is impermissible in law. We must note, this finding
of the executing court is not even noticed by the High Court in the
impugned order. The High Court also did not take into consideration
the reasoning of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the
dismissal order made in CRP No. 5175 of 2002 on 29-10-2002 which
while rejecting the similar contention of the respondents had
specifically observed that the attempt of the tenants was with a view
to delay their ejectment. In such a factual background, we think the
impugned judgment is wholly erroneous having no legal or factual
basis to sustain it. We also must notice that the High Court in the
impugned order has made an observation which in effect, in our
opinion, makes the execution proceedings liable to be dismissed. The
said observation is as follows:
“In the present case, it is proved on the record that the
shop regarding which the decree-holder was seeking
possession during execution proceedings was not the
one regarding which the ejectment order had been
passed by the Rent Controller. Neither the description
had tallied nor the boundaries tallied.”
21. This observation is contrary to the finding on Issue 7 in the original
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19
proceedings. That apart, this observation is so emphatic that by this
the execution petition itself was liable to be dismissed making the
eviction decree infructuous. It is not the normal practice of the
superior court to give a conclusive finding in matters which it remands
for further consideration because after a conclusive finding there is
nothing to be decided by the court to which the matter is remanded.”
21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated
10.12.2021 passed by learned ADJ-02, West, as learned Execution Court has
passed the said order after due consideration of the objection taken on behalf
of the appellants, and the judgment dated 13.12.2017 passed by learned
Coordinate Bench in RFA 631/2016. Accordingly, the order dated 10.12.2021
is upheld.
22. The present appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
23. Interim order dated 28.04.2023 stands vacated.
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
25. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned learned Additional District
Judge-02, West, Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.
26. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
APRIL 17, 2026/bsr/ns
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 20:47:19