Delhi High Court – Orders
Smt. Kamlesh vs Jaipal Singh Jain on 19 May, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 328/2023, CM APPL. 59055/2023
SMT. KAMLESH .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Deepak Juneja, Advocate.
versus
JAIPAL SINGH JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 19.05.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 15443/2026
2. The present application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section
151 of the CPC has been filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent seeking
the following prayers: –
“a) Allow the present application and vacate the interim order dated
06.12.2023 passed in favour of the Petitioner;
b) Dismiss the interim protection granted to the Petitioner and restore
the status before the interim order dated 06.12.2023 passed;
c) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2023
while issuing notice in the captioned petition had directed that the petitioner
shall not be dispossessed from the subject premises on the basis of the
statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The
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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
“3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of the Court
to Annexure 9 which is filed alongwith the petition which is copy of the
order passed by the Executing Court on 09.10.2023 wherein warrants
of possession have been directed by the Executing Court.
4. A peculiar situation has arisen in this case. Based on wrong advice of
the legal counsel, initially an Appeal was filed against the Eviction
Order dated 27.01.2023 which Appeal was dismissed on 07.10.2023
and thereafter another incorrect petition was filed by the Petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution. During the period of its pendency,
execution proceedings were initiated by the Respondent/landlord, and
now pursuant to order dated 09.10.2023, there is a threat of
dispossession of the Petitioner/tenant.
5. Given the fact that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer for
action of his counsel, in the aforegoing circumstances till the next date
of hearing, let the Petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject
premises. It is made clear that this order has been passed, not on the
basis of merits of the petition filed but on a sympathetic view of the
plight of the Petitioner.”
4. Subsequently, learned counsel for the respondent appeared before this
Court and had informed the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court on
19.01.2024 that possession of the subject premises was restored to the
respondent through execution on 09.11.2023 and this fact was concealed by
the petitioner from this Court. Learned Predecessor Bench was further
apprised that on 01.01.2024, the petitioner/tenant forcibly dispossessed the
respondent/landlord.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/respondent
submits that the order dated 06.12.2023 was obtained by the petitioner by
suppressing material facts and misrepresentation and therefore, the same is
liable to be vacated. It is further submitted that certified copies of the bailiff
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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
report and documents pertaining thereto shows that the possession of the
subject premises was already restored to the respondent through execution on
09.11.2023 and despite the same, a misrepresentation was made before this
Court on 06.12.2023 that there was a threat of dispossession to the petitioner
whereas, in fact, the possession of the property was already with the
respondent on the said date. Attention of this Court was drawn to the bailiff’s
report as well as the relevant ordersheets passed by learned Executing Court
in EX 368/2023 in support of the case of the respondent/applicant. It is
submitted that vide order dated 09.10.2023 learned Executing Court had
directed the bailiff to handover the possession of the demised premises to the
respondent and same was delivered to the respondent on 09.11.2023 in the
presence of the bailiff and police officials and the same has been duly
recorded in the bailiff’s report with respect to the restoration of possession. It
is further submitted that despite the aforesaid fact a false statement was made
before this Court on 06.12.2023, and an interim order was obtained by the
petitioner in his favour. It is further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner
obtained forcible possession of the demised premises, in pursuance of the
order dated 06.12.2023, on 01.01.2024 regarding which criminal proceedings
have been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 200
read with Section 190 of the CrPC for taking cognizance for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 380/448/456/506/509/120B/34 of the
IPC. The said complaint is pending before learned CMM Shahdara District,
Karkardooma.
6. During the course of the proceedings, learned counsel for the
respondent had drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed by SI
Naresh Kumar, P.S. Shahdara, before learned JMFC in the aforesaid
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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
complaint case instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. In view
thereof, a report was called by this Court from the concerned Investigating
Officer after recording the statement of the concerned bailiff, who had given
report dated 23.11.2025 before learned ARC/Execution Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant has
submitted that the statement of the bailiff has been recorded after a lapse of 2
½ years, and there is a possibility that facts might not have been correctly
narrated by him. It is further submitted that there is non-compliance of Order
XXI Rule 25 of the CPC which provides that the officer entrusted with the
execution of process shall endorse thereon the day on, and manner in which
such execution was done and shall return the process with such endorsement
to the Court. It is further submitted that the statement of the bailiff cannot be
taken on its face value as the same might be suffering from various
discrepancies.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
9. This Court has perused the relevant ordersheets passed by learned
Executing Court in EX 368/2023 titled as “Jai Pal Singh v. Kamlesh“, as well
as orders passed by the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court in the present
petition.
10. On 09.10.2023, an application was moved on behalf of the decree
holder/ respondent herein for appointment of bailiff and learned Executing
Court on 09.10.2023 had issued warrants of possession against the suit
property (demised premises) and had also directed the bailiff for a report for
08.12.2023. It was further directed that concerned SHO shall provide police
aid to the bailiff at the time of execution of decree. Learned Executing Court
vide order dated 08.12.2023 had noted the submissions of learned counsel for
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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
decree holder/respondent that he has got the possession of the property from
judgment debtor/ petitioner.
11. Perusal of the bailiff’s report dated 09.11.2023 in the aforesaid
execution proceedings shows that the respondent in accordance with the site
plan had obtained possession of the demised premises comprising of two
rooms on ground floor situated in property no. 1/6282 (old No. 1324) Gali
No. 3 , East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, on 09.11.2023. A statement of
the respondent-Jai Pal Singh Jain has also been placed on record to this effect
and the same also bears specimens of the respondent, one Narender Kumar
Jain (witness), Rakesh Kumar and the same is dated 09.11.2023.
12. As noted hereinbefore, learned counsel for the petitioner on 06.12.2023
had made statement before learned Predecessor Bench in the captioned
petition that there is a threat of dispossession to the petitioner and in view of
the same, learned Predecessor Bench had directed that till the next date of
hearing petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject premises. In view
of the facts which have been brought to the notice of this Court after passing
of the order dated 06.12.2023, the statement made on behalf of the petitioner
was factually incorrect as the possession of the demised premises was already
restored to the respondent in the execution proceedings initiated by the
respondent against the petitioner.
13. In compliance of directions passed by this Court vide order dated
17.04.2026, Delhi Police has placed on record a status report dated
18.05.2026 wherein, it has been stated as under: –
“3. That the respondent Jaipal Singh Jain had filed an eviction petition
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Court
of Ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
bearing ARC No. 168/22. The said petition was decided in favour of
the respondent vide judgment/order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Ld.
Sh. Deepak Sehrawat, Ld. SCJ-RC, KKD Courts, Delhi. However,
due to non-compliance of the said order by the accused/Judgment
Debtor (Petitioner herein), the respondent/decree holder filed an
execution petition bearing No. 368/2023 for execution/compliance of
the order dated 27.01.2023. Thereafter, proceedings were conducted
in compliance with the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by Ld. Sh.
Deepak Sehrawat, Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC, Shahdara.
4. That on 08.12.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/decree
holder submitted before the concerned Court that the decree holder
did not wish to pursue the present execution petition further, as
possession of the property in question had already been obtained from
the JD (Judgment Debtor) i.e. the present petitioner.
5. That, in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2026
passed by the Hon ‘ble High Court of Delhi, the statement of Bailiff
Sh. Hariram S/o Late Sh. Magguram was recorded (copy annexed
with the present status report as Annexure R1). In his statement,
he stated that he had received the warrant of execution on 04.11.2023
in the Bailiff Branch, KKD Courts. Thereafter, on 09.11.2023, the
Bailiff along with court staff and DH /respondent Jaipal Singh Jain ,
came to PS Shahdara, and an entry regarding their departure for
execution proceedings at the property in question was recorded vide
DD No. 28A at PS Shahdara. Thereafter, possession of two rooms
situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. 1/6282 (Old No.
1324), Gali No. 3, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, was handed
over to the respondent/decree holder, who took possession of the said
property and affixed locks thereon in the presence of the Bailiff and
staff of PS Shahdara.”
14. In the statement of bailiff dated 02.05.2026 recorded by the
Investigating Officer, the bailiff has stated that he had received the warrants
of possession on 04.11.2023 from Nazarat, Karkardooma Courts. It was
further stated on 09.11.2023, he along with ASI Pramod Kumar from
Shahdara Police Station had gone to the demised premises and DD being DD
Entry No.28 was also recorded in this regard. It was further stated on reaching
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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
the demised premises, respondent (decree holder) demarcated the property of
which he was to obtain possession. It was further stated that the petitioner
(tenant) was also present on spot along with family and he was informed
regarding the warrants and the handing over of possession. It was further
stated that the petitioner asked for one hour time in writing and after lapse of
one hour, respondent (decree holder) with the help of his labour took out the
household articles from both the rooms and in the presence of the police
officials, respondents put on his locks on the said rooms and took the
possession of the demised premises. It was further stated that the petitioner
(judgment debtor) after taking into the custody of the household articles had
acknowledged the same on the warrants. Statement of the respondent herein
(decree holder) with respect to receiving possession of the demised premises
was also recorded and the proceedings were videographed.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case as
well as the statement of the bailiff as noted hereinbefore, the contentions of
learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant that the facts might not have
been correctly stated by the bailiff in his statement and same might be
suffering from discrepancies and non-compliance of Order XXI Rule 25 of
the CPC is not tenable as the facts stated by bailiff corresponds and
corroborates with the chronology and series of events as transpired in the
present case. The dates and events have also been correctly stated by the
bailiff.
16. Order XXI Rule 25 of the CPC reads as under: –
“25. Endorsement on process.–(1) The officer entrusted with
the execution of the process shall endorse thereon the day on,
and the manner in, which it was executed, and, if the latest dayThis 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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
specified in the process for the return thereof has been
exceeded, the reason of the delay, or, if it was not executed, the
reason why it was not executed, and shall return the process
with such endorsement to the Court.
(2) Where the endorsement is to the effect that such officer is
unable to execute the process, the Court shall examine him
touching his alleged inability, and may, if it thinks fit, summon
and examine witnesses as to such inability, and shall record the
result.”
17. It is noted that the bailiff’s report dated 09.11.2023 which was filed
before learned Execution Court by bailiff has been placed on record for the
perusal of this Court in the present petition. The said report bears the
endorsement of the bailiff as well as the witnesses, the decree holder
(respondent herein) and the manner in which the execution process was
carried out. The facts stated in the aforesaid report are on the same lines as
stated by the bailiff in his statement dated 02.05.2026.
18. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that, in pursuance
of the interim protection granted vide order dated 06.12.2023, the petitioner
had forcibly taken the possession of the demised premises from the
respondent.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner did not inform the learned Predecessor
Bench of this Court about the possession being taken by the respondent in the
execution proceedings and thus, interim order dated 06.12.2023 stands
vacated.
20. The present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
21. Needless to state that the respondent is at liberty to pursue appropriate
proceedings with respect to his grievance as permissible in law before the
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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
Court of competent jurisdiction.
RC.REV. 328/2023, CM APPL. 59055/2023
22. List on 08.09.2026.
23. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
MAY 19, 2026/sn/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 21/05/2026 at 21:13:46
