$~38-39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.P. 57/2023 & EX.APPL.(OS) 1087/2023 KAMLESH SHARMA .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Ms.

Akshita Katoch and Mr. Anirudh Anand, Advocates.

versus DEVENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK & ANR. .....Judgement Debtors Through: Mr. Ravi Namsaut, Advocate for JD-2 along with son of JD-2.

Ms. Apoorva Singh, Local Commissioner/Receiver.

39.

+ EX.P. 61/2023 & EX.APPL.(OS) 1107/2023 DEVENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK .....Decree Holder Through:

versus OMKAR .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Ravi Namsaut, Advocate for JD along with son of JD Ms. Apoorva Singh, Local Commissioner/Receiver CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 26.11.2025

1. The suit from which the present execution petitions arise was decreed by this Court on 16^th December, 2009 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 17^th November, 2009 arrived at between the parties.

2. Relevant extracts from the Settlement Agreement are set out below:

3. This Court on 16^th February, 2024 appointed Local Commissioner to visit the premises along with a representative of the decree holder to identify 165 sq. yds. and 15 sq. yds. area, out of the properties which are to be partitioned and be handed over to the decree holders in both the petitions.

4. In the Order passed on 21^st April, 2025, it was noted that the property had to be divided between the decree holder, judgment debtor no.1 and judgment debtor no.2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order are set out below:

5. After hearing the submissions of the parties, the following findings were recorded:

6. In the Order passed by this Court on 11^th August, 2025, it was recorded that Receiver has put locks on the 18 rooms of the property.

7. In terms of the report of the Local Commissioner dated 4^th April, 2024, a site plan has been filed as Annexure-7 suggesting the manner in which the suit property can be partitioned by metes and bounds in favour of two decree holders and judgment debtor no.2. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said report is set out below:

8. The reference to Annexure-8 in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid report as set out above should read as Annexure-7.

9. In terms of the aforesaid report and the site plan attached thereto, portion ‘a’, i.e. area admeasuring 154.82 square yards has to go to the decree holder in EX. P. 57/2023; portion ‘b’, i.e. area admeasuring 154.82 square yards has to go to the decree holder in EX.P. 61/2023; and portion ‘c’, i.e. area admeasuring 101.68 square yards is to go to Sh. Omkar, the judgment debtor in both the petitions.

10. Counsel for the judgment debtor no.2, on instructions from judgment debtor no.2, Mr. Omkar, who is present in Court along with his son, Mr. Ravinder Kaushik, submits that they have no objection to the division of the property in terms of the site plan filed by the Local Commissioner as Annexure-7 to her report dated 4^th April, 2024.

11. Counsel for the judgment debtor no.2 submits that judgment debtor no.2 is not in occupation or possession of portion ‘a’ and portion ‘b’ in terms of the aforesaid site plan.

12. The Local Commissioner who is present in Court submits that in the various rooms which are part of portion ‘a’ and portion ‘b’, locks have been put by the Local Commissioner.

13. In view thereof, the Local Commissioner is directed to hand over possession of portion ‘a’ to the decree holder in EX. P. 57/2023 viz. Smt. Kamlesh Sharma and portion ‘b’ to the decree holder in EX. P. 61/2023 viz.

Sh. Devender Kumar Kaushik in terms of the aforesaid site plan.

14. The judgment debtor no.2, viz. Sh. Omkar or his family shall not create any hinderance or obstruction in handing over the aforesaid portions to the decree holders.

15. It is stated that the entire property continues to be in the name of the father of the parties.

16. Parties shall cooperate with each to affect mutation of the properties in their respective names.

17. Both the execution petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

18. Consequently, all pending applications sta