[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Madhu Malti Saini vs Rajesh Saini And Ors on 11 March, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25th February, 2026
Date of Decision: 11th March, 2026
+ CM(M) 2792/2024, CM APPL. 35147/2024, CM APPL.
35148/2024, CM APPL. 35149/2024, CM APPL. 71216/2024, CM
APPL. 33131/2025, CM APPL. 33132/2025 & CM APPL. 495/2026
MADHU MALTI SAINI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karanveer Singh and Ms.
Anuradha Yadav, Advocates along
with petitioner in person.
versus
RAJESH SAINI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sarthak Mannan, Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Bhardwaj, Ms. Meera Mathur
and Mr. Ankit Parindiyal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 13th October, 2023
passed by the learned Trial Court in Execution No. 228/2022, whereby the
objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed, as well as the subsequent
order dated 24th May, 2024 passed in the said execution proceeding, whereby
the warrant of possession of the suit property has been issued.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the execution
petition was not maintainable at the instance of Decree Holder namely Sh.
Rajesh Saini ('Now Deceased') as he has no locus standi to file the same
because after the settlement dated 03rd May, 2019 the Decree Holder has not
received any relief in that settlement. As per that settlement the only
beneficiaries are Sh. Nikhil Saini and Ms. Neharika Saini who are the Son and
Daughter of Sh. Rajesh Saini and presently are Respondent no. 2 and 3 in the
present petition and also the representatives of Sh. Rajesh Saini ('Respondent
no.1') as his Legal Heirs. If the execution petition has to be filed it has to be
filed by Respondent no. 2 and 3 only, but they have chosen not to file the
same. The petitioner has strong apprehension that both these respondents
being her grandchildren are not willing to claim anything from the petitioner
in the suit property and that the undertakings of these respondents have also
been forged by their father. It is further argued that the trial court has passed
the impugned orders on the basis of surmises and conjectures without
appreciating the facts on record. On these grounds it is prayed that the
impugned orders be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
impugned orders have been passed by the Trial Court after duly considering
the entire material placed on record and the present petition has been filed
only to delay the execution of the decree.
5. The Decree Holder has filed the suit for possession against the
petitioner to recover the possession of one (01) room on the 2nd floor of the
property bearing no. D-126, Freedom Fighter Enclave, IGNOU Road, Neb
Sarai, New Delhi. This suit was settled between the parties vide settlement
dated 03rd May, 2019 arrived at the Mediation Centre, Saket Court, New
Delhi. The relevant clauses in that settlement as to the suit property are as
follows:
"5. It is assured by the first party to the second party
that he will bring the NOC/undertaking letter from his son
Sh. Nikhil Saini and his daughter, namely, Ms. Neharika
Saini in respect of as they will not claim anything from the
above-mentioned suit property and the same will be handed
over to the second party prior to filing the quashing petition
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and if the first party
fails to do the same in that eventuality, both the parties are at
liberty to take appropriate steps, as per law.
6. Now the second party is willing to give the second
floor of the suit property bearing No.D-126, Freedom
Fighters Enclave, IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai, New
Delhi-110068 to Sh. Nikhil Saini and Ms. Neharika Saini in
jointly equal shares without roof right for which both are
having the right to live over there or to rent out the premises
or to sell out the said property. It is also submitted by the
second party that above-mentioned second floor has now
been rented out on Rs.13,000/- to a tenant and w.e.f. 1st June,
2019, the rent amount received from the said tenanted
premises, shall be received jointly by Sh. Nikhil Saini and
Ms. Neharika Saini and second party shall inform the tenant
accordingly.
7. It is also agreed between the parties that the ground
floor and first floor of the said suit property shall remain with
the second party Smt. Madhu Malti Saini and first party
ensure that he will not create any problem to her."
6. It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the
Court delineated the scope and limits of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised
by the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the
relevant observations are as under:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly
of the view that the impugned order1 is contrary to law and
cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for
deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act
as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the
evidence or facts upon which the determination under
challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct
every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding
is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to
substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of
the inferior court or tribunal.3 The jurisdiction exercised is in
the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under
Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like
when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so
perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is
axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to
ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
7. From the material on record, it is evident that the Decree Holder has
filed the suit against the petitioner and the matter has been settled between
them as per the settlement dated 03rd May, 2019. The Decree Holder is within
his legal rights to enforce the decree dated 27th July, 2019 which has been
passed in terms of the settlement dated 03rd May, 2019. Accordingly, the plea
of the petitioner that the Decree Holder has no locus standi to enforce that
decree is without any legal basis. The trial Court has passed reasoned
impugned orders after considering the material on record. Therefore, in the
absence of any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the
impugned orders, no ground for interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 is made out and the impugned orders are upheld.
The present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2026/isk
