The executing court has the power to remove unauthorized constructions made pendente lite and to ensure full enforcement of the possession decree. The court also emphasized that the respondents cannot be denied the fruits of the decree due to the petitioners' unlawful acts.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 03rd March, 2021 passed by the Administrative Civil Judge (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter Executing Court) in Execution Petition No.350/2017, whereby warrants of possession have been issued qua the portion shown as point X in the site plan (Ex-PW1/A), with a further direction to the bailiff to break up the locks and doors and get the portion, illegally occupied by the petitioners (legal heirs of the judgment debtor/original defendant) behind the portion marked as X in the site plan, vacated from the petitioners.

2. The counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel appearing on caveat on behalf of the respondents (decree holders/original plaintiffs) have been heard at length when the petition was first listed on 23rd November, 2021 and judgment was reserved.

3. Brief resume of the facts giving rise to the present petition are detailed hereinafter.

3.1 In 1986, the respondents had filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against the original defendant, being suit No.674/1986 pertaining to two rooms and a small kitchen at the back of 12, Padmini Enclave, New Delhi. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 30th January, 1993.

3.2 The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the original defendant by way of an appeal before this Court, being RFA No.474/1993. The said appeal was allowed in favour of the respondents vide judgment dated 30th October, 2003 and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside.

3.3 The petitioners challenged the said judgment before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 15th December, 2003 granted stay against dispossession in favour of the petitioners. Vide order dated 17th November, 2008, the Supreme Court passed a direction that the said order would continue to operate throughout the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners.

3.4 The appeal filed by the petitioners being Civil Appeal No.6702/2008 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 11th July, 2017.

3.5 Thereafter, the respondents filed an application, being CM No.44084/2017 in the disposed of RFA No.474/1993 seeking clarification/ modification of the judgment dated 30th October, 2003 passed by this Court.

3.6 Vide order dated 10th July, 2018, the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2003 was modified by this Court and it was directed that the suit would stand decreed with respect to the property at point X in the site plan (Ex.PW1/A).

3.7 The execution petition No.350/2017 was filed on behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed objections thereto. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2019.

3.8 When the Court appointed bailiff went to execute the warrants of possession on 20th May, 2019, the petitioners did not permit the bailiff to execute the warrants of possession, as they contended that the portion in their occupation was not part of point X in the site plan.

3.9 Accordingly, the respondents filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to get warrants of possession executed qua the suit property as shown in the site plan at point X, including all further constructions/additions undertaken by the petitioners.

3.10 The said application was allowed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 03rd March, 2021, observing/reasoning that:

(i) The petitioners claimed themselves to be the owners of the property lying behind the suit property as being part of 8-A, Kaushalya Park on the basis of an agreement to sell, which though executed prior to filing of the suit, was never relied upon by the original defendant during the pendency of the suit or by the petitioners in the execution proceedings;

(ii) In the suit, the case set up by the original defendant was that he was in occupation of the aforesaid land in 8-A, Kaushalya Park on the basis of adverse