[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vakeel Ahmed vs Kamlesh Gupta on 6 December, 2025
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06.12.2025
+ CM(M) 2915/2024 & CM APPL. 39035/2024
VAKEEL AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan,
Advocate.
versus
KAMLESH GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta and Mr. Rohit
Pradhan, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R (ORAL)
1. This petition was filed by the judgment debtor, assailing orders dated
17.05.2022, 02.06.2023, 29.04.2024 and 31.05.2024 of the learned
execution court. However, by way of order dated 15.07.2024, the
petitioner/judgment debtor withdrew the challenge against order dated
02.06.2023. As such, presently, only three orders are assailed in this petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for both sides. The only argument
advanced by learned counsel for petitioner/judgment debtor is that the
petitioner had already restored possession of the subject property to the
present respondent/decree holder in the month of October 2014. No other
CM(M) 2915/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
Digitally Signed 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.12.06 16:21:15 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:06.12.2025
16:48:12
argument has been advanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent/decree holder supports the impugned orders and contends that
the petitioner/ judgment debtor is trying to hoodwink the courts at different
levels.
3. By way of order dated 17.05.2022, the learned execution court
dismissed the objections of the petitioner/judgment debtor and directed
issuance of warrants of possession of the subject tenanted property as well
as warrants of attachment of the movable properties for recovery of the
outstanding mesne profits. By way of order dated 29.04.2024, the learned
execution court recorded the outstanding arrears to the tune of
Rs.17,44,363/- and after elaborate discussion, rejecting the contention of the
petitioner/judgment debtor that possession of the subject tenanted property
stood handed over to the present respondent/decree holder, directed police
assistance to break open locks of the premises concerned in view of
aggressive resistance raised on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor. By
way of order dated 31.05.2024, the learned execution court by way of
reasons recorded in the order allowed the application of the present
respondent/decree holder and directed issuance of arrest warrants against
petitioner/judgment debtor. Hence, the present petition.
4. As mentioned above, the only argument advanced on behalf of
petitioner/judgment debtor is that he had handed over possession of the
subject tenanted property to the respondent/decree holder in the month of
October 2014, when admittedly the suit was pending before the trial court.
CM(M) 2915/2024 Page 2 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.12.06 16:21:01 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:06.12.2025
16:48:12
5. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for
petitioner/judgment debtor states that he has no evidence to show handing
over of the possession. In response to further query, learned counsel for
petitioner/judgment debtor submits that neither the trial court, which passed
the decree nor the appellate court, which confirmed the decree accepted this
plea of restoration of possession. In response to yet another query, learned
counsel for petitioner/judgment debtor submits that he had filed second
appeal also, but the same got dismissed for non-prosecution and was not
sought to be restored.
6. However, learned counsel for petitioner/judgment debtor also claims
at this stage, that he has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to
sell and recovery of possession of the subject property. That suit is stated to
be pending and no interim orders have been passed in favour of the present
petitioner/judgment debtor. At this stage, learned counsel for
respondent/decree holder discloses that in the said suit, the present
petitioner/judgment debtor, rather withdrew his application for interim
injunction. On this, learned counsel for petitioner/judgment debtor submits
that the interim application was withdrawn because the petitioner/judgment
debtor was not ready to bear the cost of Local Commissioner and the said
withdrawal was with liberty to file afresh. But despite one year having
passed after that withdrawal, no fresh application has been filed.
7. It would further be significant to note that today itself, another similar
petition arising out of same decree was listed. The said other petition,
CM(M) 2915/2024 Page 3 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2025.12.06 16:20:48 -08'00'
Signing Date:06.12.2025
16:48:12
bearing no.CM(M) 446/2023 was filed by some persons claiming
themselves to be the legal representatives of brother of the present petitioner
and those persons assailed rejection of their objection related to identity of
the subject property. Today itself, after addressing partly, learned counsel
for those petitioners withdrew the petition CM(M) 446/2023.
8. The above conspectus leaves me in no doubt that the
petitioner/judgment debtor is trying to somehow resist the execution of the
decree by protracting the proceedings, so that the respondent/decree holder
abandons the litigation in frustration.
9. I find absolutely no infirmity in any of the orders impugned in the
present proceedings, so all impugned orders are upheld.
10. The present petition is not just completely devoid of merits but is
absolutely frivolous and brought with mala fide. Therefore, the petition and
the accompanying application are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- which
shall be paid by the petitioner/judgment debtor to the respondent/decree
holder within one week.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.12.06 16:20:30 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 06, 2025/ry
CM(M) 2915/2024 Page 4 of 4 pages
