IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the decree under section 47 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the consequences of permissive possession by the judgment debtors.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. - This petition impugns the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Civil Judge- II, (South-West) Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Ex. No. 728/22, titled as Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Krishna & Ors. ('Executing Court') whereby the Executing Court dismissed the objections filed under section 47 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) by the Petitioners i.e., judgment debtors.

1.1. The Petitioners are original defendants and the Respondents are legal heirs of the original plaintiff in the civil suit. The parties are being referred to by their original rank and status in the suit proceedings.

1.2. The original plaintiff was the father of the defendant no.1 (his aughter). The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the family members of defendant no.1 being her husband and two (2) sons.

1.3. The civil suit bearing suit no. 263/04 was filed by the original plaintiff late Shri Shiv Narayan, father of the defendant no.1 for recovery of possession of the room marked by letters D, E, F, G ('second room') in the site plan out of the property bearing No. RZ-36H, Harijan Basti, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi marked by the letters A, B, C, D ('entire property or suit property') against the defendants therein. The site plan was filed in the suit.

1.4. However, during pendency of the suit the original plaintiff i.e., Sh. Shiv Narayan had expired, therefore Respondents herein being the sons of late Shri Shiv Narayan were substituted as plaintiffs in the said civil suit as they relied upon a registered Will dated 01.03.2004.

1.5. The aforesaid civil suit was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge acting as Rent Controller of West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court') vide judgment dated 03.10.2017 wherein a decree of possession was passed in favour of the Respondents.

1.6. The said judgment dated 03.10.2017 was challenged by the defendants in regular civil appeal no. 141/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2022.

1.7. The defendants did not file any further appeal and accordingly, the judgments of the Trial Court dated 03.10.2017 and the Appellate Court dated 02.04.2022 have become final.

1.8. However, the defendants failed to vacate the suit property and thereafter the execution petition has been filed by the plaintiffs i.e., decree holder for recovery of the possession of entire property.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners by referring to the site plan filed at age 24' of this paper-book states that this is the same site plan, which was filed by the original plaintiff along with the civil suit before the Trial Court.

2.1. He states that the decree has been passed by Trial Court with respect to the portions marked as D, E, F, G i.e., the second room in the site plan. He states that the Executing Court, therefore, cannot issue warrants of possession with respect to the entire property i.e., A, B, C, D as seen in the site plan.

2.2. He states, even otherwise, this decree is unenforceable as there is no independent access in the plot to the portion marked as D, E, F, G in the site plan.

2.3. He states that since the defendants are in possession of the entire property marked as A, B, C, D on the site plan. And, therefore for the portion marked as D, E, F, G i.e., the second room this decree has become non-executable.

2.4. He fairly states in response to a query raised by this Court, that no such objection with respect to non-executability of the decree was raised before the First Appellate Court, which upheld the judgement of the Trial Court dated 03.10.2017.

3. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondents states that the suit was filed originally by Shri Shiv Narayan i.e., the father of the defendant no. 1, Smt. Krishna.

3.1. She states that the civil suit was filed by him during his life time for seeking recovery of possession of second room, in which, Smt. Krishna and her family members were permitted to reside.

3.2. She states that during the pendency of the civil suit, the