$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 410/2019, CM APPL. 20560/2019 & CM APPL. 66581/2024 SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Deepak Sain, Advocate versus PRADEEP KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. R. S. Yadav, Advocate for R-1 (M:9811715071)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 15.12.2025

1. Vide order dated 24^th August, 2023, the present appeal was admitted and was listed in the category of ‘Regulars’. Subsequently, ex-parte stay was obtained bythe appellants byway of order dated 03^rd April, 2024. Thus, vide order dated 13^th August, 2024, it was directed that respondents are at libertyto move an application for vacation of stay.

2. Pursuant thereto, an application being CM APPL. 66581/2024, was filed on behalf of the respondents for vacation of stay granted vide order dated 03^rd April, 2024.

3. When the matter was listed on 14^th November, 2024, the following order came to be passed:

“CM APPL. 66581/2024(for vacation ofstay grantedby order dated

03.04.2024)

1. The respondent No. 1 has filed this application for vacation of the orderofstaygrantedon03.04.2024.

2. The appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019 by which the learned Trial Court granted specific performanceofanagreementtosellimmovablepropertyonthesuitof therespondentNo.1-plaintiff.

3.Theappealhasbeenadmittedbyorderdated24.08.2023.

4. In the meanwhile, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, I am prima facie of the view that the equities between the partiesmay be balancedbydirectingthe appellanttodepositinto Court monthly occupation charges, as a condition for stay of execution of the decree. This would enable the Court to restitute the respondents for denial of possession in the event the appellants are unsuccessfulintheappeal

5. Per contra, if the judgment of the Trial Court is ultimately set aside,theamountcanberecoveredbytheappellants

6. Without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the application, the parties are directed to place on record any material which would assist the Court in coming to a determination of occupationchargesforthispurpose

7. The respondent No. 1-applicant may file an additional affidavit for this purpose within four weeks from today. The appellants may file replies to the application, also dealing with the contents of the additional affidavit within four weeks thereafter. Rejoinder thereto, if any,maybefiledwithintwoweeksthereafter.

8.Liston25.02.2025.”

(EmphasisSupplied)

4. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that this Court had directed that the equities between the parties may be balanced by directing the appellants to deposit in this Court, the monthly occupation charges, for stay of execution of the decree. Thus, both the parties were directed to file an additional affidavit with regard thereto.

5. While respondent no. 1 has already filed an additional affidavit, however, the appellants till date have not filed the additional affidavit in terms of the order dated 14^th November, 2024.

6. Perusal of the order dated 01^st May, 2025 shows that it had been recorded that the appellants wish to engage a new counsel for which some time was requested. Further, vide order dated 01^st September, 2025, statement on behalf of the counsel for the appellants was recorded that his office had recently been engaged. Thus, the Court granted further time to the appellants, to file an affidavit in terms of the directions passed in the order dated 14^th November, 2024.

7. Today, Mr. Deepak Sain, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the appellants and submits that he has recently been engaged and seeks accommodation for today.

8. It is to be noted that after obtaining stay from this Court, the appellants have failed to comply with the directions of this Court, by failing to file additional affidavit for the purpose of depositing monthly occupational charges bythe appellants herein.

9. More than one year has passed, when the directions in this regard were pass