$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 + CM(M) 2442/2025, CM APPL. 79865/2025 & 79864/2025 NARESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Ms.

Deeksha Aggarwal, Advocates versus RISHAB SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Gupta, Mr. Divyam Kandhari and Mr. Anup Kashyap, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R (ORAL)

1. Petitioners have assailed order dated 03.12.2025 of the learned execution court, whereby their application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC was dismissed and consequently warrants of possession of the subject property were directed.

2. Learned counsel for respondent/Decree Holder appearing on advance intimation accepts notice.

3. Learned counsel for both sides request that in view of the urgency that has arisen in view of the impugned order, final arguments may be heard at this stage itself. Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD23pseD ee .5o iN a 5 r g 6 ds t i .:4 a i e t 0 4 tc al . : a 4 32 N = l 2 l 0 C50I u 0 yN 2 fo = m 9 2 c s, d 8 7 54 io be g 46 .8 = 1 =e 0 n 2 72 H r 1 1 e 6 9= . d 1 1 Id c 6 G d0 d 8 a 5 b 3 H 0c 8 f1 y e c0 8 7 C 8 8 a3 G 9 :0 O , 6 2 , b I 1 o 7 R s 8 U2 e tu 9 I : R = 7 1 S 2 = 6 H aT 7 D 64 H7 f O - e5 K a I7 0 Gl1 AF , h b 8 ec H T i ' 2D 0 , nc H fC 4 E 0= 6 P 5 L ' O5 G AH c fU I0 L R I, R 7 I I A e S T b 4 H 5 Oa dK Ffe 1A Dc 5T 4 5 E H 5L 7P 5H 0A 6 9 I,9 L9 C I a 6 I A Df b 3 4 9- 0 67 f 20 8 c4 0 67 c f6 b b3 d 48 2 8, e

4. Broadly speaking, the present petitioners claim that they are in possession of the property, which is subject matter of the decree of possession under execution. The present petitioners claim that they were not made party to the suit which culminated into the judgment and the decree. It is further contended by them that the judgment and decree under execution were obtained by the parties to that suit in collusion, therefore, the present petitioners filed a suit for declaration of ownership, which suit is pending before the court of District Judge, West, Delhi. That being so, the petitioners claim that the execution proceedings should be adjourned sine die till the suit filed by them is decided.

5. The said application of the present petitioners was dismissed by the learned execution court, holding thus:

“The applicants are claiming their right, title and interest in the suit property from the successor in interest of the JD. It is admitted fact that the applicants have acquired the interest in the suit property from the transferee pendente lite. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 28.01.2025 has clearly noted that the applicants (earlier objectors) in the present execution petition are precluded from raising any objection under Rule 102 of Order XXI CPC. It was ruled that the objections filed by the transferee pendente lite are expressly barred under Rule 102 of Order XXI CPC and they have no locus to object to proceedings of the execution of decree in question.

Since the applicants being objectors have no locus as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as stated above, hence, the application of the applicants is not maintainable before this court. Present court being the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. The applicants are at liberty to seek the prayer of stay of the present execution petition before the court in which the applicants have challenged the judgment and decree of possession dated 20.10.1998.”

D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD24ps0D e .3 4 o iN a 5 r g 5 0 s t i .:4 a i e t f 2 tc 9al . : a c 2 N = l7 24 l C 0I u 6 0 y 8 N o =2 m 2 7 s, d 86 59 io be g 4c .6 = 1 =e 0a n 52 H r 1c1 e f= . d 1 1 IdG 8d a0 d 8 0 b , 3 H 0 8o 11 y e0 8 7 C u e 83 G 9 :2 = O 6 2 , b I 67 R Hs 8 U2 f t9 I : I a R = 7 5 S G 6, H aT 3 D 4 H c 7 O - e5n K 7 0 Cl1= AF h b 8 O e G T i ' 2D 0 ,c U H I f 4 E 0R 6R P 5 L 'I