The court emphasized that established decrees must be honored and that non-compliance with prior court orders can invalidate claims to retain possession of property.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 25th January, 2020 passed by the Ld. ADJ-01 (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Executing Court") in Ex. No. 786/2018 titled Paramjit Kaur v. Santra Devi, by which the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor/Appellant herein, were rejected by the Executing Court. Further, by the impugned order, the Executing Court has issued warrants of possession in respect of the property bearing No. H-39, Gali No. 3, Shastri Park, Delhi- 110053 (hereinafter "suit property") and warrants of attachment against the moveable assets of the Judgment Debtors therein, including the Appellant. The said order has been followed by another order dated 27th March, 2021 passed by the Executing Court, vide which warrants of possession and warrants of attachment have again been issued in favour of the Decree Holders/Respondents herein.

3. The background of the case is that a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction being Civil Suit No.174/2014 titled Smt. Paramjit Kaur v. Sh. Surbir Singh, was instituted on 8th May, 2008 by the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein - Smt. Paramjit Kaur and Shri. Surbir Singh, against seven Defendants, including the Appellant herein, Smt. Santra Devi, in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, which was filed before the Ld. ADJ, Central-17, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the following issues came to be framed:

"1)Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? (OPD)

2) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 R 11 CPC? (OPD)

3) Whether the defendants are the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession? (OPD)

4) Whether the plaintiff no.1 is entitled to the declaration as an absolute owner of the suit property? (OPD)

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property? (OPD)

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit? (OPP)

7) Relief."

4. Evidence was adduced by the parties and the suit was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 15th July, 2014, in the following terms:

"56. In the light of my findings upon the forgoing issues, I hereby pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with respect to the suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/10 on record filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff no.1 is also declared to be the owner of the suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/10 on record. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants and their agents etc. from creating any third party interest in the suit property. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance."

5. Aggrieved, the Defendants in the abovementioned suit including the Appellant herein, preferred an appeal against the decree dated 15th July, 2014, being RFA 383/2014 titled Smt. Santra Devi & Ors. v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur & Anr. During the adjudication of the said appeal, status quo was directed to be maintained, vide order dated 25th August, 2014. On 5th December, 2017, the ld. Single Judge hearing the said appeal issued directions in respect of the stay application. The relevant extr