Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs Shri Nilender Prakash on 29 August, 2025
$~78 & 92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29th, August, 2025
+ CM(M) 1659/2025 & CM APPL. 54022-54023/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Aakash Tyagi, Advocates along with
Mr. Vishesh Kumar, Section Officer
(L&DO).
versus
SHRI NILENDER PRAKASH
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh T. and Mr. Abhishek
Mishra, Advocates.
+ CM(M) 1671/2025 & CM APPL. 54388-54389/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Aakash Tyagi, Advocates along with
Mr. Vishesh Kumar, Section Officer
(L&DO).
versus
SHRI NILENDER PRAKASH
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh T. and Mr. Abhishek
Mishra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Both the present petitions have been filed by Union of India under
Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 01.08.2025.
2. The petitioners have already suffered separate decrees and, pursuant to
such decrees, which have already attained finality, separate execution
petitions have been filed.
3. On the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
judgment debtor that they were seeking budgetary allocation, the request of
the decree holder for issuances of warrants of attachment was kept in
abeyance for a period of 30 days which is now expiring on 31.08.2025.
4. Apparently, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
and the above time was of 30 days rather given on the basis of request coming
from the side of the judgment debtor themselves. If they felt that the
budgetary allocation has yet not been received, they could have, instead of
knocking the doors of supervisory Court, filed appropriate application before
the learned Executing Court, seeking additional time.
5. It is, therefore, not clear as to on what premise, the present petitions
have been filed when the time had been granted to them on the basis of their
own request.
6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for decree holder is present on
advance notice.
7. During course of the consideration of both these petitions, learned
counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submits that the decretal amount would
be paid on or before 15.10.2025.
8. Such statement is taken on record.
9. Learned counsel for decree holder submits that, in view of the above,
he would not take any further coercive steps in the matter till 15.10.2025.
However, if the situation remains the same, besides obtaining warrants of
attachment, he would also make a prayer before the learned Executing Court
seeking imposition of heavy cost upon the judgment debtor for delaying
execution.
10. In view of the above, both the petitions are hereby disposed of with the
direction to the petitioner to clear the decretal amount on or before 15.10.2025
and till then, let there be no issuance of coercive process.
11. The parties are also directed to appear before the learned Executing
Court on 15.10.2025 and on said date, learned Trial Court, after assessing
further development, would proceed further with the matters, in accordance
with law.
12. The present petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
13. The pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
14. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master
to learned counsel for both the sides.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
AUGUST 29, 2025/ss/pb
