Disposed

Satender Singh v. Kuldeep Aggarwal

Delhi HC21 Oct 2024EX.F.A./6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged an execution court order granting liberty to approach the High Court. The High Court held that the execution court only needed to verify compliance with a prior conditional stay order and that no further directions were necessary. The appeal was disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satender Singh Vs Kuldeep Aggarwal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- EX.F.A. 6/2022

¶4

SATENDER SINGH .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Godara, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

KULDEEP AGGARWAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Ms. Malvika Satija, Mr. Sarthak Sawhney and Mr. Parth Sen, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R % 21.10.2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶11

This appeal is arising out of the order dated 12.11.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Execution No.37/2000.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court in RFA 561/2016 titled as Kuldeep Aggarwal v. Satender Singh, vide order dated 09.08.2016, has granted stay, subject to the respondent herein, depositing the entire decretal amount, along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, till the date of deposit, before this Court by way of a demand draft/pay order, in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the passing of the order. He further submits that subject to compliance of the aforesaid, the execution of the judgment and decree impugned in RFA 561/2016 was stayed.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 23:10:14

¶14

According to learned counsel, when the grievance was raised before the Executing Court that the order dated 17.10.2016 was not complied with, the Executing Court by way of the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 granted him liberty to approach this Court. Learned counsel, therefore submits that when the order passed by this Court has been disobeyed by the respondent therein, the Executing Court ought to have proceeded with the execution proceedings.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the liberty granted by Executing Court vide order dated 12.11.2021 does not give any reason for filing any appeal, rather the appellant herein ought to have approached this Court in pending RFA 561/2016 if he has any grievance with respect to the disobedience of the said order.

¶16

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record.

¶17

The order dated 09.08.2016 passed in RFA 561/2016 reads as under:

¶18

“The present appeal assails the judgment and .decree dated 04.05.2016, passed by the ADJ-04, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CS No.100/2014, whereby the suit for possession and mesne profit instituted on behalf of the respondent herein was decreed against the appellant herein.

¶19

Admit.

¶20

Trial Court Record be requisitioned.

¶21

List this appeal in the category of (Regular Matters J at its turn. List the matter before the Registrar (Appellate) on 16.09.2016 for completion of service in the appeal.

¶22

CM APPL.2867112016

¶23

Issue notice to' the respondent by all permitted modes, including

¶24

¶25

dasti, on the applicant/appellant taking necessary steps within two days, returnable on 17.10.2016.

¶26

Subject to the applicant/appellant depositing the entire decretal amount, along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, till the date of deposit in this Court by way of a demand draft/pay order, in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of eight weeks from today, the execution of the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal, is stayed till the next date of hearing.

¶27

It is made clear that if the amount is not so deposited, the respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree subject of course to restitution, in the event of the appeal succeeding.”

¶28

It is thus seen that the Court passed a conditional order and made it clear that if the amount so directed is not deposited, the appellant herein was entitled to execute the decree subject to the cost to restitution, in the event of the appeal succeeding.

¶29

It is thus seen that what the Executing Court was required to examine was the compliance of the order dated 09.08.2016. There was no necessity to grant any further liberty to any of the parties. If any of the parties would have any grievance with respect to the findings to be given by the Executing Court, the concerned party could have taken appropriate remedy. The Executing Court, is under an obligation to undertake the mathematical exercise and to proceed accordingly.

¶30

The Court, therefore, finds that no directions are required in the instant appeal.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶32

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶33

OCTOBER 21, 2024/p

¶34

Satender Singh v. Kuldeep Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satender Singh v. Kuldeep Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba Shirdi Nath Education College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Devadarsini Umapathy Vs Medical Counselling Committee & Ors.

Sri Ramkrishna Institute of Medical Sciences and Sanaka Hospitals & Anr. Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Aishwarya College of It and Management ---- Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Anisha Yadav Minor through Natural Guardian Mr Manish Kumar Vs D.A.V. Public School & Anr.

Jile Singh Vs Suresh