IMPORTANT POINT
The voluntary settlement between the parties and the terms and conditions for disbursement of sale proceeds were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) - These petition(s) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order(s) dated 14.10.2022 and 21.07.2023 passed by the ADJ-04, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Executing Court') in Ex Civil No. 157/2017 titled as Sarbjit Singh Arora v. Om Prakash.

1.1. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 14.10.2022 had taken on record the Vakalatnama of the intervener i.e., Smt. Sushma in the pending Ex. Civil No. 157/2017.

1.2. Vide the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 the Executing Court had issued warrants of attachment/possession with respect to the property bearing no. 409, Ground Floor, Block No. RU, Pitampura Residential Scheme, Delhi (`subject property').

1.3. The said intervener has raised objections to the claim of the decree holder to proceed against the subject property. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 21.07.2023. The said intervener has filed CM(M) No. 1340/2023 impugning the order dated 21.07.2023.

1.4. The decree holder has impugned the order dated 14.10.2022 in CM(M) 1420/2023 on the ground that no objection on behalf of the intervener could have been entertained on the said date in the absence of a written application to the said effect.

2. For ease of reference, the rank and status of the parties as it appears in CM(M) 1340/2023 is being referred to in this order. The intervener is the Petitioner and the decree holder is the Respondent No.1. The judgment debtor is arrayed as Respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein i.e., Smt. Sushma entered into a registered Agreement to Sell dated 07.04.2016 (`ATS') with Respondent No.2 i.e., Sh. Om Prakash (judgment debtor) for the purchase of subject property. He states that the Petitioner is in exclusive possession of the subject property in part performance of the said ATS, as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`Act of 1882').

3.1. He states that the Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.49 lakhs to Respondent No.2 through bank transfer as recorded in the said ATS and the Respondent No.2 has failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the Petitioner herein. He states that a further sum of Rs.7 lakhs as well was paid to the Respondent No. 2 in cash towards the purchase of the subject property. He states that in addition, the Petitioner incurred expenses on payment of stamp duty, registry fees and brokerage amounting to Rs.3,62,250/-. He states in this manner a sum of Rs.61,62,250/- was incurred by the Petitioner towards the said ATS. He states that no further sum is due and payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 as per the ATS. He states that the Petitioner has also registered an FIR bearing no. 289/16 dated 17.05.2016 against the Respondent No. 2 with respect to the said transaction.

3.2. He states that thereafter, disputes have arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit bearing CS No. 683/2017 (`civil suit') for recovery of the principal sum of Rs.61,62,250/- along with interest from the Respondent No.2 and another defendant therein. He states that the said civil suit is pending adjudication before the District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Civil Court') and Respondent No.2 has been proceeded ex-parte.

3.3. He states that the Respondent No.1 herein is a decree holder for recovery of money by virtue of a judgment dated 22.09.2016 which was modified vide judgment dated 23.12.2016 (`said decree') and the Respondent No.2 is the judgment debtor in the said decree.

3.4. He states that the execution of the said decree is pending in the Ex Civil No. 157/2017 and the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 21.07.2023 had issued warrants of attachment/possession with respect to the subject property.

3.5. He states that subsequently, in view of the pendency of this petition, the Executing Court has de-attached the subject