JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Cm No.32249/2018 (for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 11th July, 2018)

This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 10th August, 2018.

2. Though there is no sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 11th July, 2018 but still, in the interest of justice, subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent, the appeal is restored to its original position.

3. Costs have been paid by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant in person.

4. The application is allowed and disposed of.

EX.F.A. 2/2018

5. The counsel for the appellant has been heard and the records perused.

6. This Execution First Appeal under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 22nd September, 2017 in Execution No.23745/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge-14, Central] of dismissal of objections filed by the appellant/objector to the execution sought by the respondent/decree holder.

7. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder instituted a suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated 25th April, 1988 of sale of 100 sq. yds. of Khasra No.1 and TC 90, Khata No.193, Khewat No.27 situated at Village Ghonda, Chohan Bangar, Delhi having a total area of 200 sq. yds., against (i) Shyam Sunder Sharma; (ii) Om Prakash Sharma; and, (iii) Mahabir Sharma. Only defendant no.1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma contested the suit by filing a written statement. The counsel for the appellant/objector clarifies that the defendants no.2&3 Om Prakash Sharma and Mahabir Sharma had nothing to do with the property subject matter of the Agreement to Sell and no relief was claimed against them and they were merely proper parties.

8. The said suit, being Suit No.167/2008 instituted on 16th October, 1998, was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2010 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi and the defendant no.1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma aforesaid was directed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, upon the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder paying/depositing the balance sale consideration.

9. The counsel for the appellant/objector on enquiry states that the defendant no.1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma preferred First Appeal to this Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree and which appeal was dismissed in default.

10. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder applied for execution of the decree aforesaid and in pursuance whereto a Sale Deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder was executed under the authority of the Executing Court and the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder delivered vacant peaceful physical possession of the property through process of the Court on 6th January, 2011.

11. The appellant, on 18th January, 2011 filed objections in the execution filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, pleading (i) that the appellant/objector is the legal owner of the property, having purchased the same from its previous owner Sarfaraj vide General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Receipt etc. all dated 24th November, 2004; (ii) that the appellant/objector, on such purchase, paid the entire agreed sale consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/- and was also delivered vacant peaceful physical possession of the property by said Sarfaraj; (iii) that the said Sarfaraj had purchased the said property from the defendant no.1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma vide various documents such as registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavits, registered Special Power of Attorney, registered Will etc. all dated 29th July, 1998; (iv) that the appellant/objector, since purchase on 24th November, 2004, was in possession of the property and had been forcibly dispossessed therefrom in execution sought by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder of the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2010 aforesaid; (v)