Santra Devi And Ors vs Paramjit Kaur And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 839 Del

                          $~45 (Appellate Side-2022 list)
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CM (M) 266/2022 & CM No. 14443/2022, CM No.
                                 14444/2022
                                 SANTRA DEVI AND ORS                           ..... Petitioners
                                              Through:            Mr.Ghanshyam Thakur, Adv.

                                                     versus

                                 PARAMJIT KAUR AND ORS                ..... Respondents
                                              Through: Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv.
                                              with Mr.S. Surbir Singh

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                                              JUDGEMENT (O R A L)

% 24.03.2022

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails an order dated 9th February, 2022, passed by the learned trial court, in compliance with an order dated 25th October, 2021, passed by this Court in Ex. F.A. 2/2020. Paras 20 and 22 of the said decision have been extracted in the impugned order. They read thus:

"20. In the present appeal, which arises out of the execution proceedings this Court does not deem it appropriate to go beyond the decree dated 15th July, 2014. This Court is of the opinion that the DDA is well within its rights to raise any objections which it may have qua the Decree Holder being handed over the suit property pursuant to the impugned decree. Since the stand of the Appellant herself is that the land belongs to DDA, the execution of warrants of possession of the suit property and warrants of attachment against the movable assets of the Judgment Debtors cannot be obstructed

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.03.2022 14:55:29 or hindered by the Appellant in any manner. The warrants of possession and warrants of attachment would be liable to be executed in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the bailiff would not handover the possession of the suit property to the Decree Holder. The possession of the suit property shall vest with the Executing Court and the bailiff shall deposit the keys of the property with the Executing Court.

***

22. The ld. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority and Others v. Vijay Kumar Data and another [Civil Appeal No. 7374/2003 decided on 12th July, 2011] to argue that a decree in respect of an acquired land is liable to be ignored. The said judgment and the legal position in respect of Jaipur Development Authority and Others (supra) shall be considered by the Executing Court while deciding the objections of the DDA."

2. The impugned order also notes the fact that, since long, there have been desperate attempts by the petitioner, as the judgment debtor, to halt execution of the decree in all possible manners after having herself failed to comply with the orders passed. In these circumstances, the impugned order has directed warrants of possession to be issued in respect of the suit property and attachment of the moveable assets of the judgment debtors. Appropriate instructions have also been issued to the concerned bailiffs.

3. Para 23 of the judgment dated 25th October, 2021 supra reads thus:

"23. The intent, at this stage is to safeguard the property itself. The question as to whether the decree holder is entitled to the same would be considered by the Executing Court.

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.03.2022 14:55:29 Since the DDA was not a party to the suit, it deserves to be heard by the Executing Court. However, the Appellant has no right to remain in the suit property and the Respondents are permitted to move an appropriate application before the Appellate Court in RFA 383/2014 in respect of Appellant's failure to pay the use and occupation charges."

4. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the fact that, despite the fact that this order has not been set aside, modified or varied by any subsequent order, the appellant, with abject impunity, continues to remain in the suit property.

5. Such a litigant, in my view, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is but a sister provision to Article 226.

6. In view thereof, as the petitioner is in clear breach of para 23 of the order dated 25th October, 2021, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.

7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. This would not preclude the petitioner from re-approaching this Court after complying, in form and spirit with the directions contained in the order dated 25th October, 2021. Leave and liberty to that extent stands reserved.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J MARCH 24, 2022/kr

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.03.2022 14:55:29