Delhi High Court
Ashok Ohri & Anr vs The Delhi Development Authority on 6 March, 2020
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th March, 2020
+ CM(M) 312/2020 & CM APPL. 9050/2020
ASHOK OHRI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate (M-
9810062932)
versus
THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.S. Oberoi, ASC with Mr.
Ankur Sharma, Advocate (M-
9818783173)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
PRATHIBA M. SINGH (Oral)
1. The incessant adjournments being granted by the Trial Court and non-
passing of orders despite hearing of the arguments in the execution petition
is the gravamen of the present petition. The Petitioner is the Decree Holder,
in whose favour a final judgment/decree was passed on 23 rd December,
2000. The operative portion of the decree reads as under:
"...
10. So "or as the injunction is concerned, the plaintiff
is pleading and testifying vehemently that the
defendants have colluded to dispossess him without
due process of law and for which the local police has
been approached and even the DDA had acknowledged
the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
sufficiently brought on record that he is in possession
against the certain documents and the Defendant No.2
has no interest in the suit land. It is also being very
well brought on record that the Plaintiff is still
apprehending his dispossession which is not
controverted by any other piece of evidence. So, it has
been sufficiently brought on record that there is an
apprehension of being dispossessed. Besides, the
Plaintiff has sufficiently brought on record that he is in
possession against a creation of legal right after the
execution of the documents in the form of General
Power of Attorney, Agreement and Will etc. So the
possession of the Plaintiff is found to be legal one.
Besides this Plaintiff has sufficiently brought on record
that there is an apprehension of his dispossession. So it
has been successfully brought on record that the
Plaintiff has a legal right qua possession.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I am
of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
injunction and the defendants are hereby restrained
from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit property
bearing No.WZ-4, Main road, Sarswati Garden, New
Delhi, without due process of law.
12. In view thereof the suit is partly decreed no order
as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and the file be
consigned to Record Room."
2. Subsequent to the passing of the decree/judgment, the DDA is stated
to have put up a board in the property stating that the property belongs to the
DDA. Hence the Decree Holder sought execution of the above decree. The
execution petition was itself filed in 2011 but continues to remain pending.
Ld. counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record orders commencing from
January, 2019 till the last order dated 1st February, 2020. The same shows
that the matter has been repeatedly heard by different judicial officers and
no orders are being passed. For example, on 7th June, 2019, arguments were
fully heard in the execution application. The matter was adjourned for orders
to 8th August, 2019 and on 8th August, 2019, orders were not pronounced.
Again on 21st September, 2019, orders were not pronounced. On 2nd
November, 2019, it is stated that the presiding officer had gone on training.
On 6th December, 2019, it is stated that the officer who heard the arguments
had now been posted to another Court.
3. Despite administrative instructions that even when new posting orders
are issued, orders which are pending, ought to be pronounced, it is clear that
several Trial Courts are not following the said practice, and are merely
releasing the matters or not pronouncing orders. Such a practice has already
been deprecated by this Court in several judgments including Deepti Khera
v Siddarth Khera CM(M) 1637/2019 (Decided on 18th November, 2019),
YN Gupta (Deceased) v M/s MA Ramzana CM(M) 1827/2019 (Decided on
24th December, 2019) and M/s Shushre Securities Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Times A
& M (India) Ltd & Ors. CM (M) 98/2020 (Decided on 2nd March, 2020)
4. Under these circumstances, owing to the long delay that has ensued
due to non-pronouncement of orders, it is directed that the execution petition
shall now be taken up for hearing on 24 th March, 2020, the date already
fixed. Orders shall be passed in the execution petition in accordance with
law within a period of two months from today.
5. With these observations, the petition and all pending applications are
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 06, 2020
Rahul
