* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order : 11^th September, 2023 + C.R.P. 245/2023 SURESH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sushil Sharma, Mr.Virendra Kumar, Mr.Kshitij Vedwal and Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocates versus KAMLA DEVI NOTIYAL AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Nemo CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. 46495/2023 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 245/2023 & CM APPL. 46496/2023 (Stay)

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs: -

“A) Allow the present civil rev. and set aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the LD Trail Court (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the Execution No. 963 of 2017 titled as Kamla Devi V s. Roop Lal and Decree dated 01.1 0.2016 passeJ by Ld. ADJ, Central, THC, Delhi in RCA No. 61421 of

2016 (old No.29/15/14) and B) direction may kindly issued to entertain the objections of petitioner as per law.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKCA.R.P. 245/2023 Page 1 of 16 C) Pass any other proper and further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the present civil rev. in favour of the petitioner/objector and against the respondents in the interest of justice.”

2. The respondent No. 1 had entered into an agreement to sale with one Late Sh. Roop Lal, for the purchase of plot admeasuring 50 sq. yards situated in Khasra No. 51/1 Burari Extension, Village Burari, Delhi (hereinafter “the suit property”). The respondent No. 1, had filed a Suit for specific performance stating that the possession of the property in question has not been handed over to her.

3. The Trial Court had passed a decree dated 12^th November 2014, in favour of the respondent No. 1 which was modified by the Appellate Court vide order dated 1^st October 2016, in Civil Suit bearing new RCA No. 61421/2016. The Appellate Court had passed a judgment for specific performance in favour of the respondent No. 1 (decree holder before the learned Execution Court and plaintiff before the Trial Court). Vide the said judgment, the Appellate Court had directed Late Sh. Roop Lal (judgment debtor before the learned Execution Court and defendant before the Trial Court, since deceased) to execute a sale deed qua plot admeasuring 50 sq. yards situated in Khasra No. 51/1 Burari Extension, Village Burari, Delhi (hereinafter “the suit property”), in favour of the respondent No.1.

4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an execution petition bearing Ex No. 963/17, which is pending for execution of the above said order before the learned Civil Judge – 1 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKCA.R.P. 245/2023 Page 2 of 16 (hereinafter “Executing Court”). The decree holder i.e., the respondent No. 1 herein, by way of the said execution petition, has already received 37 ½ sq. yards of the Suit Property vide a Sale Deed dated 5^th August 2020, executed by Sh. Deepak, who is the legal heir of Late Sh. Roop Lal (since deceased).

5. The delivery of the remaining 12 ½ sq. yards of the Suit Property could not be completed as the petitioner is obstructing to the same. Consequently, the petitioner, i.e., the objector before the learned Executing Court had filed his objection under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section

151 of the CPC, on 15^th February 2023.

6. The petitioner, by way of filing of the said objections had raised his grievances against the above said execution petition on the ground that he is the owner and in possession of the said 12 ½ sq yards which is the part of „30 sq, yards including the built up double storey house, situated in khasra No. 51/1 Village Saleempur Mazra Buradi Ext.‟ (hereinafter “Property No.

2”), which is also being sought in the said execution proceedings.

7. The objections raised by the