Delhi High Court – Orders
Suresh Kumar & Anr vs Rakesh Chawla on 16 July, 2026
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026
SURESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate (Legal
Aid)
versus
RAKESH CHAWLA .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 16.07.2026
Lawyers are abstaining from appearing in Court today.
CM APPL. 44067/2026 & CM APPL. 44068/2026 (Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 44066/2026 (permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of
dates)
1. This application has been filed seeking permission to file lengthy
synopsis and list of dates.
2. Application is allowed. Permission, as prayed, is granted.
3. Application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026 (Stay)
1. This petition has been filed for setting aside execution proceedings
pending before ADJ, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Execution Civil
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 1/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
No.384/2022, where an execution petition had been filed for execution of
judgment and decree dated 05th September 2022.
2. Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate, appears through Legal Aid for the
petitioners/defendants and the matter has been taken up on an urgent basis,
considering that the Executing Court by way of impugned order dated 25th
May 2026, has directed to proceed with the auction proceedings on 17th July
2026 i.e. tomorrow.
3. The essential plea taken by Mr. Agrawal, is that the decree itself could
not have been passed on account of it being barred under Section 22 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter, ‘SRA’). He states that a particular
relief ought to have been sought for refund of earnest money for it to be
granted by the Court decreeing the Suit (hereinafter, ‘Suit Court’).
4. Mr. Agrawal, points to the suit where no such relief had been sought.
Quite to the contrary, the relief sought in Suit No. CS 575665/2016, was, in
fact, for petitioners/defendants to perform their part of Agreement to Sell
(‘ATS’), which was stated to be constituted through Agreement-cum-
Receipt-cum-Acknowledgment dated 20th October 2009 for sale of property
bearing No. 1157, Pocket A-1, Sector 30, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘subject
property’).
5. Mr. Agrawal, states despite there being no specific relief sought for
refund, nor an amendment to that effect being preferred by
respondent/plaintiff, the decree directing refund of earnest money, along
with interest at Rs.13,00,000/- with 7% interest was passed.
6. In his support, he places reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court
in K. R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1014, where
the Supreme Court categorically stated that, in the absence of a specific
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 2/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
prayer for refund of advance money and there being no amendment
application, as permitted under the proviso to Section 22(2) of SRA, the
Court would not be inclined to grant relief of refund of advance money to
the plaintiff. Relevant paragraphs of this judgment are extracted as under for
reference:
“58. It is thus a settled position of law that the plaint
may be amended at any stage of the proceedings to
enable the plaintiff to seek an alternative relief,
including that of refund of earnest money, and the
courts have been vested with wide judicial discretion to
permit such amendments. However, under Section 22
of the 1963 Act, the courts cannot grant such relief suo
moto, since the inclusion of the prayer clause remains
a sine qua non for the grant of such a relief. In other
words, when an “appropriate case” exists for seeking
the said relief under this provision, it must be
specifically sought either in the original plaint or by
way of an amendment. This has been emphatically held
by this Court in Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, (2023) 3
SCC 714. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereunder:
“35. On a plain reading of the above-reproduced
provision, we have no reason to doubt that the
plaintiff in his suit for specific performance of a
contact is not only entitled to seek specific
performance of the contract for the transfer of
immovable property but he can also seek
alternative relief(s) including the refund of any
earnest money, provided that such a relief has
been specifically incorporated in the plaint. The
court, however, has been vested with wide judicial
discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend the
plaint even at a later stage of the proceedings and
seek the alternative relief of refund of the earnest
money. The litmus test appears to be that unless aC.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 3/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the
earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by
way of amendment, no such relief can be granted
to him. The prayer clause is a sine qua non for
grant of decree of refund of earnest money.
36. Applying these principles to the facts of the
case in hand, we find that the respondent has
neither prayed for the relief of refund of earnest
money in the original plaint nor he sought any
amendment at a subsequent stage. In the absence
of such a prayer, it is difficult to accept that the
courts would suo motu grant the refund of earnest
money irrespective of the fact as to whether
Section 22(2) of the SRA Act is to be construed
directory or mandatory in nature.”
59. The judgment in Desh Raj (supra) has been relied
upon by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant herein. However, it is difficult to understand
how this judgment furthers their case. On the contrary,
this judgment clearly contradicts their position, stating
in unequivocal terms that, in the absence of a prayer
for the relief of refund of earnest money, such relief
cannot be granted by this Court…..
61. Applying these principles to the facts of the case at
hand, we find ourselves unable to accept the
submissions of the appellant that, in the absence of a
specific prayer for the refund of advance money paid
by them, Prayer (c) of the plaint which specifies the
grant of “such other relief(s) as the Hon’ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice”, can be construed to include a
prayer for such an alternative relief…..
63. In our considered opinion, the law contained under
Section 22(2) of the 1963 Act is adequately broad and
flexible to allow the appellant to seek an amendment of
the plaint for the said relief, even at the appellate
stage. However, no such application for an amendment
of the plaint was moved either before the trial court or
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 4/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
during the course of the first appeal before the High
Court. That is to say, the appellant never prayed for
the refund of the advance money. Here, it would be
redundant to state that the law aids the vigilant, not
those who sleep over their rights.
64. For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the
conclusion that the forfeiture of advance money by the
respondent nos. 1-4 was justified. In such
circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief of
refund of advance money to the appellant.”
(emphasis added)
7. Mr. Agrawal, therefore, states that execution proceedings pending
before the Executing Court, seeking to execute and enforce the judgment
and decree dated 5th September 2022 are ex-facie and patently illegal, non-
est and void, since an Executing Court can only execute and enforce a
decree which is valid in law.
8. He submits that the Court is empowered to intercede at this stage,
particularly when jurisdictional issues are involved. Reliance has been
placed on Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Vigyan Chemical
Industries, 2025 INSC 928, where an issue regarding computation of
interest on decretal amount and consequential execution proceedings arose.
In that case, proceedings emanated from a suit which went into Second
Appeal before the High Court and consequentially, execution was filed for
recovery of decretal amount. Post the filing of execution petition, a Writ
Petition was filed, which was dismissed by the High Court, as well as, a
Revision Petition, which was also dismissed.
9. In an elaborate discussion, the Supreme Court discussed the scope of
Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘), and stated as under:
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 5/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
“19. From the above pronouncements of this Court, it
is amply clear that at the stage of execution
proceedings, objections regarding the maintainability
of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the trial Court
can be raised for consideration, and the executing
court is well within its powers to deal with such
objections in accordance with law, if such objections,
from the face of the records, do not require
adjudication by trial. However, in the case on hand,
the objections raised by the appellant regarding the
maintainability and the execution proceedings have
been rejected by the Executing Court at the threshold,
without going into the contentions. This court in a
recent judgment in Celir LLP v. Mr. Sumati Prasad
Bafna and others, while dealing with a contempt
petition and underscoring the importance of bringing
finality to concluded litigations, applying the
Henderson’s rule, refused to accept the contentions
against the original order, holding that a defence,
which ought to have been raised, if not raised, is
deemed to have been raised and overruled. The said
judgment arises in a contempt matter, where the law
that a court hearing the contempt case can neither
expand the scope of original order nor modify it is well
settled [See: Midnapore Peoples Co-operative Bank
Ltd and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others].
However, the case on hand is completely different, and
the scope of interference by the execution court is to be
understood in the light of the power conferred upon it
by Section 47 and the settled position that the
executing court can refuse to execute the decree if it is
a nullity. In addition to the settled position that a
decree obtained by fraud or against the wrong person
is a nullity, there are other circumstances which can
render a decree to be a nullity.”
(emphasis added)
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 6/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
10. Moreover, the Supreme Court categorically stated that it was just to
allow the appellant (therein) to raise the ground of jurisdiction since it
strikes at the very heart of the matter. Relevant observation of the Court is
extracted as under:
“24. Based on this settled legal position, we find it just
to allow the appellant to raise the ground of
jurisdiction before us. Consideration of the question
would not require any additional evidence, since it
involves a pure question of law and strikes at the heart
of the matter. We shall now turn to the merits of this
argument.”
(emphasis added)
11. Aside from the legal issues, certain disturbing aspects have been
brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Agrawal. Petitioners/defendants
had been allotted this plot of land by Delhi Development Authority
(‘DDA’). Post allotment and pre-possession, one, Rajender Verma, alleged
that he had paid some amount of money to petitioners/defendants and in that
respect, he filed a suit being Suit No. 304/2008 seeking specific
performance. The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was not being
pressed in view of a settlement reached between the parties.
12. Thereafter, the present respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking
specific performance, based on alleged documents which resulted in the
decree passed on 05th September 2022 directing refund of Rs.13,00,000/-
along with 7% interest.
13. Mr. Agrawal, points out that the counsel, Mr. Gaurav Garg, who had
previously appeared for petitioners/defendants had also been the lawyer for
respondent/plaintiff in the previous suit. He had also appeared as
complainant’s witness in a complaint case, where the complainant was
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 7/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
respondent/plaintiff and had made a statement that, “I am the counsel for the
complainant in his almost all the cases”.
14. Further documents have been brought to the Court’s attention by Mr.
Agrawal, where Mr. Gaurav Garg had also signed as a witness on the
documents which were purported to be executed between the parties.
15. Basis the above, it has been argued that auction proceedings of the
subject property, as directed by the Executing Court, may be beyond
jurisdiction of Executing Court, considering that the relief granted in the suit
would be barred under Section 22 of SRA.
16. Another issue raised is regarding the settlement arrived at before the
Executing Court, as per which Rs.5,00,000/- were paid to
respondent/plaintiff, which have been forfeited under the orders of
Executing Court. However, Mr. Agrawal, states that the settlement was
executed under the fear of auction of subject property, directed by the
Executing Court, which has a market value of Rs.60,00,000/- approximately.
17. In these circumstances, issue notice to the respondent/plaintiff, on
steps being taken by petitioner/defendant to be served through the counsel
appearing in the Trial Court, returnable on 3rd August 2026.
18. Till then, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.
19. Order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
20. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
JULY 16, 2026/ak/sp
C.R.P. 197/2026 & CM APPL. 44064/2026, CM APPL. 44065/2026 8/8
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 17/07/2026 at 23:15:20
