$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 428/2025 MR. MANU RAMCHANDANI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS .....Appellant Through: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocate.

versus MR. HARISH RAMCHANDANI .....Respondent Through: MR. Om Prakash and Mr. Rajeev R.

Pathak, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026 CM APPL. 4325/2026 By way of the present application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the applicant/respondent seeks vacation/modification of order dated 14.05.2025, whereby while issuing notice on RFA Nos. 428/2025 and 429/2025 and the accompanying stay applications, this court had observed as follows:

“22. On a prima-facie view of the matter, upon a reading of the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2025, and especially considering that the appellant had purchased stamp papers towards the proposed sale deed in respect of the subject property and has been in continuous possession of the subject property since 1996; and most importantly, since the respondent has been unable to explain the purpose and character of the payment of Rs.8.40 lacs received by him from the appellant, the effect and operation of impugned judgment and decree dated 03.03.2025 shall remain stayed,till thenext date of hearingbeforethis court.

“23.Mr. Prakash submits that the stay of the money decree must be conditional upon deposit of the decretal amount which comes toabout Rs.4.74crores.

“24. In the circumstances obtaining in the matter, the court refrains from passing any order in that respect at this stage; and this aspect will be considered once pleadings in the stay applications arecomplete.”

2. Vidé order dated 14.01.2025, this court had also granted time to the respondent to file their replies to the stay applications in the following terms:

“18. Let reply to CM APPL. No. 29269/2025 and CM APPL. No. 29275/2025 be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04weeks thereafter; with copy to the opposing counsel.”

3. Order dated 14.01.2025 was subsequently challenged by the respondent by way of SLP (Civil) Nos. 18333-18334/2025, which SLP was disposed-of by the Supreme Court vidé order dated

01.09.2025 with the following observations:

“2) It is the primary contention of the petitioner that stay ought to have been conditional, subject to deposit of at least 50% of the decretal amount which comes to Rs. 4.74 crores; and simplicitor stay in money decree should be avoided in terms of Order 41 Rule 1 (3)of CPC.

“3) During hearing and on being asked, it is informed that reply affidavit to the stay application has been filed before the High Court, and the matter is already fixed for hearing on stay applicationon15.09.2025.

“4) After hearing, at this stage in the above fact situation, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned and request the High Court to decide the stay application as expeditiously as possible, affording due opportunity of hearing. Parties are at liberty toraiseall theobjections as permissibleunder the law.

“5)The petitioner is also at liberty toapply for modification, if any, before the High Court and on filing such application, it shall beconsideredinaccordancewithlaw.”

4. It is based on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court vidé para 5, as extracted above, that the respondent has filed the present application.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respondent, this court is of the view, that the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent today are the same as those that were raised and that have already been considered by this court on 14.05.2025,as dealt-with in paras 23 and

24 of order dated 14.05.2025 extracted above.

6. As recorded by the Supreme Court in order dated 14.01.2025, pleadings in the stay applications are complete; and it is now for the Roster Bench to decide at the time of hearing the applications bearing CM APPL. Nos. 29269/2025 and 29275/2025, whether or not any condition is to be imposed on the stay of the impugned judgment and decree d