Delhi High Court
Madan Mohan Sharma vs Kishan Gupta & Anr on 22 January, 2020
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2020
+ C.R.P. 12/2020
MADAN MOHAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
KISHAN GUPTA & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Neil Wadia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Darshan Paliwal, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 2529/2020 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CAV 54/2020
Since learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has entered
appearance, the caveat is discharged.
C.R.P. 12/2020
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 13.12.2019 whereby the
objections of the petitioner to the execution petition filed by the
respondent has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner/objector had filed the subject objection petition
contending that he is the owner of the property bearing DDA flat
No.A-73A, Ground Floor, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi and behind his
back a decree of possession has been obtained by respondent No.1
against respondent No.2.
3. The Executing Court, while dismissing the objections has
noticed that the petitioner/objector had not produced any original
document in support of his title, despite several opportunities having
been granted to him. He had only produced photocopies of General
Power of Attorney executed by the original allottee Sh. Yad Ram in
favour of Sh.Kamlesh Narain Sharma and of the Power of Attorney
executed by Sh. Kamlesh Narain Sharma in his favour.
4. The executing Court has observed that the General Power of
Attorney alleged to have been executed by the original allottee Sh.
Yad Ram in favour of Sh.Kamlesh Narain Sharma and the General
Power of Attorney executed by Sh.Kamlesh in favour of the petitioner
were all photocopies and unregistered documents. The objector had
even failed to produce any original document or chain of documents
in Court.
5. The Executing Court has further noticed the contention of the
petitioner was that he had been regularly visiting the property but was
unaware of the subject suit.
6. The Executing Court has noticed that litigation between
respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 carried on for a period of over
nine years and the disputes had even travelled upto the Supreme Court
and the decree of possession in favour of respondent No.1 had been
upheld even upto the Supreme Court. It is only when the judgment
debtor lost the case in the Supreme Court and the decree holder
applied for execution, that the petitioner/Objector came forward and
filed the objection petition.
7. No explanation has been rendered before this Court also as to
how the objector contends that he was not aware of the litigation when
he claims that he was in touch with the judgment debtor and as per his
allegation regularly visiting the property.
8. Even before this Court none of the original documents could be
produced by the petitioner/objector. A copy of the FIR has been
placed which is lodged on 11.05.2019 contending that all documents
in respect of the subject property have been lost. The FIR does not
inspire any confidence, in view of its timing.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent caveator has
pointed out that all original chain of documents had been produced by
him before the Trial Court and the Executing Court and were duly
exhibited before the Trial Court.
10. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Executing Court that
the objections filed by the petitioner are not sustainable in the absence
of original documents of title having been produced by the petitioner,
more so in view of the fact that original title documents along with the
purchase documents from the original allottee have been produced by
the respondent No.1/Decree holder.
11. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Executing Court and
accordingly find no merit in the petition.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JANUARY 22, 2020
rk
