Partly allowed

Kamaljeet Sharma v. Kavita Sharma & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Sept 2017EX.F.A./15/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that disputed questions of fact regarding ownership in execution petition cannot be decided on pleadings alone. Court set aside impugned order directing fresh disposal after recording evidence within stipulated time frames.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting 20.3.2017 disposed of; directing fresh disposal of objections after recording evidence within 4 months of evidence completion.

Kamaljeet Sharma Vs Kavita Sharma & Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- EX.F.A. 15/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 23967/2017 (for stay)

¶4

KAMALJEET SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl and Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

KAVITA SHARMA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amitej Kumar and Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for R-1. Mr. R.G. Srivastava, Advocate for R- 2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

¶8

O R D E R % 05.09.2017

¶9

This first appeal impugns the judgment of the executing court dated 20.3.2017 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant with respect to property B-18, 2^nd Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Appellant/objector claims that he is the owner of this property in terms of an oral family settlement and not the judgment debtor.

¶10

In law, disputed questions of fact can only be decided after an opportunity is given to the parties to lead evidence in support of the EX.F.A. 15/2017 page 1 of 3

¶11

respective cases. Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided only by reference to pleadings.

¶12

Counsels for the parties fairly agree that this appeal can be disposed of by a consent order that the executing court will frame an issue as to whether or not appellant/objector is or is not the owner of the attached property B-18, 2^nd Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, and on this issue appellant will have not more than three opportunities to complete his evidence, failing which right of the appellant to lead evidence shall stand closed. Decree holder/respondent no. 2 or any other party wanting to lead evidence also agrees that they will complete their evidence in three opportunities. Executing court is requested to ensure that arguments in the objections are complete within four months of completion of the recording of evidences of the parties. Executing court is also requested to expedite the disposal of the objections as also the main executing petition itself in which the respondent no. 2/decree holder has to recover a huge amount running into lacs of rupees.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by setting aside the

¶14

page 2 of 3

¶15

EX.F.A. 15/2017

¶16

impugned order dated 20.3.2017 and directing a fresh disposal of the objections of the appellant after evidences are led by the parties.

¶17

Parties to appear before the executing court of Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal, ADJ, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 27.10.2017 for

¶18

further proceedings in terms of the present order.

¶19

Dasti to counsels for the parties.

¶20

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶21

SEPTEMBER 05, 2017

¶22

¶23

page 3 of 3

¶24

EX.F.A. 15/2017

Kamaljeet Sharma v. Kavita Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaljeet Sharma v. Kavita Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Sharma and Ors. Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Pvt. Ltd.

Shish Pal Tomar Vs Hansraj Bansal

Krishan Kumar Vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Deep Chand Vs Ram Swaroop & Ors.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs Santosh Jain