Delhi High Court
Mohd Shakeel & Ors vs Mohd Islam on 26 August, 2025
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26th, August, 2025
+ CM(M) 1138/2022 & CM APPL. 45897/2022 & CM APPL.
9736/2024 & CM APPL. 11090/2025
MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sana Ansari and Mr. I. Ahmed,
Advocates along with petitioner in
person
versus
MOHD ISLAM .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vijay K. Gupta and Mr. Mehul
Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Respondent Mohd. Islam had filed a suit against three defendants
which was, eventually, decreed on 11.01.2022.
2. Armed with such decree, an execution petition was filed by the
decree-holder which was registered as Ex. No. 164/2022.
3. Fact, however, remains that aforesaid decree was challenged and the
learned First Appellate Court modified the decree.
4. On the basis of such modified decree, decree-holder filed yet another
execution petition, which has been registered as Ex. No. 519/2025.
5. Fact remains that the judgment-debtors, in the previously filed
execution petition, filed certain objections and such objections were
dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 02.09.2022 and the present
petition challenges the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2022.
6. The sole grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that with respect to
one decree, two separate execution petitions cannot be maintained.
7. During course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent/decree
holder submitted that since another execution petition has already been filed
based on modified decree, he would not be pressing his previously filed
execution petition i.e. Ex. No. 164/2022.
8. On the basis of such statement made by learned counsel for decree
holder, learned counsel for petitioners submits that she is left with no
grievance in the present matter, at the moment.
9. Learned counsel for decree holder submits that he would make
appropriate statement before the learned Executing Court in this regard.
10. He, however, submits that when the present petition was taken up by
this Court on 27.10.2022, there was a direction that further proceedings in Ex.
No. 164/2022 shall remain stayed.
11. It is clarified that since decree holder is, now, not inclined to pursue the
aforesaid execution petition, such stay stands vacated and the decree holder,
as noted above, would make appropriate statement before the learned
Executing Court seeking withdrawal of Ex. No. 164/2022 and learned
Executing Court would pass appropriate order accordingly.
12. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending
applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
13. Needless to say, since initially filed execution petition i.e Ex. No.
164/2022 is going to be withdrawn by the decree holder, the coercive process
issued by the learned Executing Court, while dealing with such execution
petition, would also not be pursued further and carried out.
14. All rights and contentions of the parties are, however, reserved and
they would be at liberty to take whatever contentions, as permissible under
law, in the second execution petition.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
AUGUST 26, 2025/dr/js
