Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Kedarnath Gupta and Sons HUF – Appellant
Versus
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. imposed burden on execution not justified. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. direction to follow supreme court's guidelines. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. conclusion and disposal of the petition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (ORAL)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 56039/2022 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1460/2022
3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner/ decree holder submits that by way of the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, learned Executing Court has placed the burden of filing the list of movable and immovable properties of the respondent/ judgment debtor, which in his submission is unwarranted and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi And Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418.
4. Learned counsel submits that the ratio and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court are crystallized in the said order in para 42 and more particularly in para 42.6 and 42.12. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Executing Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Order 2
Execution proceedings must adhere to Supreme Court guidelines, ensuring the appropriate burden on judgment debtors is clarified as per legal precedent.
Executing Courts must adhere to Supreme Court directives and ensure actual possession is delivered while respecting conditions set forth in Settlement Deeds as per applicable law.
A person claiming independent right, title or interest in the property can resist delivery of possession even by filing an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court itself and if th....
The Court has the discretion to direct the petitioner to file a reply to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 before the Trial Court.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
Point of Law : Exemption provided under Section 60(1)(c) of C.P.C is not applicable to a charge decree or to a decree where there is a statutory charge, over property.
The need for the Executing Court to consider objections filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC, 1908 before proceeding with execution proceedings.
The Decree Holders deserved to be put back in possession as relegating them to filing another suit for recovering possession would lead to multiplicity of litigations and would prejudice the Decree H....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
