$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 13/2026, CM APPL. 3689/2026 AADESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate.

versus SATISH KHATANA & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026 CM APPL. 3690/2026 (Exemption

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application is accordingly disposed of.

C.R.P. 13/2026

1. This petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’) assailing the order dated 18^th December 2025 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Petition no. 330/2019, whereby the objections filed by petitioner/Judgment Debtor no.3 under Section 47 CPC were rejected.

2. The issue emanates from civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits filed by respondent no.1/Decree Holder, which was decreed in their favour by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. A decree of possession, mandatory injunction and mesne profits was passed in favour of Decree Holder.

3. The Decree Holder filed an execution petition before the Courts at Gurugram and recovered possession of the suit premises. The surviving issue pertains to recovery of mesne profits.

4. By order dated 01^st May 2019, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurugram, transferred the decree to be executed to District and Sessions Judge, North-West District, Rohini, for the recovery of decretal amount of Rs. 9,21,600/-.

5. Notice was issued to petitioner/ Judgment Debtor no.3 as well as the other Judgment Debtors with directions to file affidavits as per Form 16-A, Appendix E under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of CPC. Accordingly, petitioner complied with the aforesaid directions and filed affidavit.

6. Subsequently, petitioner filed objections under Section 47 of CPC on 23^rd September 2022 and deposited 50% of the amount being Rs. 4,76,900/- before the Rohini Cours. Vide order dated 04^th November 2022, the Court stayed the warrants of attachment against petitioner and directed that a reply to be filed by Decree Holder to the objections. The objections of petitioner/

Judgment Debtor no.3 were then dismissed by the impugned order.

7. Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioner, contends that the dismissal of objections of the petitioner/Judgment-Debtor No. 3 was erroneous, as the liability under the decree was not joint and several but proportionate liability. It is submitted that petitioner/ Judgment-Debtor No. 3 had already disbursed half of the decretal amount towards mesne profits, as opposed to only one-third representing their actual share. Since the decree stood satisfied qua Judgment-Debtor no. 3, the Execution Court ought not to have proceeded against them. However, these objections were dismissed by the Executing Court.

8. Accordingly, Issue notice.

9. Notices may be served to respondents through counsel appearing in the Executing Court.

10. List on 12^th May 2026. CM APPL. 3689/2026 (Stay

1. In the facts and circumstances as stated, the proceedings qua Judgment Debtor no.3/petitioner shall be deferred till the next date of hearing.

2. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 19, 2026/RK/zb