Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3376

Page 1 of 17

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 16^th May, 2023

+

C.R.P. 20/2020

ASHOK & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr.

Abhimanyu

and

Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates.

versus

KHYALI RAM & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Sharvan Dev, Advocate

with Respondent No.4 Ajit Singh Rana-in-

person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

C.M. APPL. 6356/2022

This is an application filed by the Petitioners under Order 1

Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking deletion of Respondents No.1 and 3 who are

stated to have expired and stating that being issueless, their alleged

share goes to the legal heirs of Liaq Ram/Respondent No.2.

Issue notice.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents accepts

notice.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Names of Respondents No.1 and 3 are hereby deleted from the array

of parties.

Amended memo of parties filed along with the application is

taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

Digitally Signed

By:KAMAL KUMAR

Signing Date:18.05.2023

13:17:59

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3376

Page 2 of 17

C.R.P. 20/2020 & C.M. APPL. 4004/2020 (for stay)

1.

By this revision petition, Petitioners seek quashing of order

dated 10.01.2020, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case

No. 95292/2016 titled ‘Khyali Ram and Others v. Ashok and Others’,

whereby objections filed by the Petitioners have been dismissed and

warrants of possession have been issued against suit property bearing

House No. 548, with adjacent courtyard, situated in Village Abadi of

Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110062. Petitioners herein are sons of late

Sh. Laxman Singh who was one of the Defendants before the Trial

Court while Respondents are legal representatives of the three

Plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

2.

Facts to the extent necessary can be encapsulated as Plaintiffs

filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24.04.1986 against two

Defendants namely Sh. Bholey Ram and Sh. Laxman Singh, seeking a

restraint from interfering with peaceful possession over the suit

property. A joint written statement was filed by the Defendants

denying possession of Plaintiffs over the suit property as well as

correctness of the site plan filed with the plaint. Defendant No. 1/

Sh. Bholey Ram gave a statement on 25.04.1988 that he had no

concern with the suit property and had been unnecessarily impleaded

as a Defendant. In view of this statement, Plaintiffs withdrew their suit

against Defendant No. 1 and the suit proceeded against Defendant

No. 2.

3.

Trial Court, as an interim measure, ordered status quo with

regard to possession and existing construction on the suit property and

a Local Commissioner was also appointed. According to Defendant

No. 2, Local Commissioner reported that possession of the open

courtyard was with Defendant No. 2 while the adjacent area was in

possession of Defendant No. 1 and some neighbours and this

Digitally Signed

By:KAMAL KUMAR

Signing Date:18.05.2023

13:17:59

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3376

Page 3 of 17

established that Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit

property. No objections were filed by the Plaintiffs against the Local

Commissioner’s report.

4.

Subsequently, Defendant No. 2 stopped appearing in the matter

and the Court proceeded ex parte against him vide order dated

11.12.2003 and a decree was passed on 27.08.2004 decreeing the suit

for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and restraining

Defendant No. 2 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit

property, in any manner. In 2006, the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders filed

Execution Petition bearing No.259/2006 which was dismissed on

02.02.2007 with the observation that the Decree Holders failed to give

particulars of the da