$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.P. 58/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 965/2025, EX.APPL.(OS)

967/2025 SUMITRA SARKAR .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, Ms. Shilpa, Mr. Mohit, Ms. Aditi, Ms. Ritika, Advs. versus INDRAJIT RAY & ORS. .....Judgement Debtors Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Adv. (For JD-1 and 5) with JD-1 and 5 in-

person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 28.11.2025

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf the decree holder for execution of final judgment and decree dated 3^rd April, 2024 (‘decree’). By way of the said decree, it was directed that the property bearing no. J-1982, C.R. Park, New Delhi, admeasuring approximately 233 square yards with construction on Ground Floor, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Floor and 3^rd Floor (‘suit property’) be divided among the parties in the ratio of 1/6^th share each in favour of the decree holder and judgment debtors no. 1 to 5.

2. Judgment debtor no.3, Ms. Suchitra Ray filed an appeal against the judgment dated 3^rd April, 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 9^th August, 2024.

3. Counsel for the decree holder submits that the original decree sheet has been filed. However, the same is not on record.

3.1 The delay in filing the same is condoned.

3.2 Counsel shall take steps to have the original decree sheet placed on record.

4. On the last date of hearing i.e. 8^th August, 2025, an adjournment slip was moved on behalf of judgment debtors no. 2 and 3 and none appeared on behalf of judgment debtor no.4, despite service. It was, therefore, made clear by the Court that in the event none appears on behalf of judgment debtors no. 2 to 4 on the next date of hearing, the Court shall be inclined to appoint a Court Commissioner for sale of the suit property.

5. None appears on behalf of judgment debtors no. 2, 3 and 4. Counsel appearing for judgment debtors no. 1 and 5, along with judgment debtors no. 1 and 5 in-person, supports the case of the decree holder for the sale of suit property through the process of court auction.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ms. Manisha Singh, (Mobile No.: +91 9811941496) is appointed as Local Commissioner for the purposes of carrying out the auction of the suit property. The following directions are passed in this regard:

i. In the first instance, the Local Commissioner shall conduct inter se bidding between the parties. The parties shall be permitted to submit their respective inter se bids to the Local Commissioner in respect of all or any of the properties.

ii. The parties will be at liberty to explore the possibility of a private sale through mutual consent under the aegis of the Local Commissioner. The efforts to undertake a private sale shall be concluded within six (6)

weeks.

iii. In case the parties are unable to sell the property through private sale, the Local Commissioner will initiate the process through public auction.

iv. The Local Commissioner shall be at liberty to carry out the valuation from a government-approved valuer in respect of the aforesaid subject properties.

v. The Commissioner shall conduct the public auction as per Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Chapter XXIV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side), Rules, 2018 and by following due procedure and he would be competent to sell the aforesaid suit properties to the highest bidder.

vi. The parties shall be entitled to participate in the public auction and bid personally.

vii. The original title deed in respect of the subject properties shall be produced by the party who is in custody thereof, before the Local Commissioner, as and when directed.

viii. Parties shall cooperate with the Local Commissioner in executing the commission.

ix. The fees of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 3 lakhs to be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective share. In addition, the fees of the Valuer appointed by the Local Commissioner as well as other out-of-pocket expenses that may be incurred by the Local Commissioner,