Shri Chiranjee Lal vs Smt. Sunita
2014 Latest Caselaw 3407 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CM(M) No. 704/2013 & CM Nos.10689-90/2013

%                                                    30th July , 2014

SHRI CHIRANJEE LAL                                        ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate


                          VERSUS

SMT. SUNITA                                               ...... Respondent

Through: Mr. Siddharth Pandit and Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the order of the executing court dated 7.6.2013

which has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/decree-

holder/plaintiff for review of the order dated 30.4.2012. The order dated

30.4.2012 reads as under:-

" As per the complaint filed by the JD and the report received from SHO PS Ranhola, whole of the house of the JD has been locked and the key is on record. The other key is with SHO, PS.Ranhola.

Ld counsel for JD submits that the suit for property as per the decree is only half of the room as shown under point C.H.G.J and there is only one gate for entry and exit in the whole of the suit property. Dur to the lock the JD is unable to enter her house and is facing great difficulities.

SHO PS Ranhola is directed to allow the JD to enter into her house. JD is directed not to place her lock outside the gate located near the point J of the site plan and further not to use the portion indicated as C.H.G.J for any purpose. JD is directed to file her affidavit.

Let notice be issued to DH to appear in person on 04.05.2012. At request, a copy of this order be given dasti."

2. The subject suit for possession filed by the petitioner/plaintiff/decree-

holder was decreed and the operative portion of the judgment dated

10.5.2011 reads as under:-

"Issue No.5

In view of the observations made under the preceding issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the relief of possession qua the suit property i.e. the portion shown in Red in Ex.PW-1/1 marked as CHGJ in property bearing no. 136-A, situated in Village Ranholla, PS.Nangloi, New Delhi-41. Decreed accordingly with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room."

3. It is clear from the operative portion of the judgment decreeing the

suit that the petitioner/decree-holder therefore is only entitled to portion

marked CHGJ shown in red in the plan Ex.PW1/1 and nothing further.

4. In view of the above, since the decree is only for the portion marked

CHGJ, the decree-holder can only have that portion under the subject

judgment and decree, and therefore by putting of her lock on any other

portion, access to other areas in the property cannot be blocked by the

petitioner.

Dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

JULY 30, 2014/ib