Dismissed¶26

Mohd. Nadeem v. Sushma Choudhary

Delhi HC6 Apr 2026C.R.P./32/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 115 CPC revision; Order XXI Rule 2 CPC recording satisfaction of decree; Order XXI Rule 2(3) CPC certification of adjustment; mediation settlement default clause; novation of decree; self-executory settlement; executing court jurisdiction; compromise decree dated 22.01.2018; settlement dated 05.04.2025 (Rs.78,00,000/-); Turkman Gate property attachment and possession; Execution Petition No.149/2020; Execution Petition No.2064/2019 (Aster Handicrafts Ltd. v. Mohd. Nadeem); CS(DJ) No.475/2025; C.R.P. 32/2026; Anish Dayal, J.; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The settlements were self-executory and would not survive in the event of non-compliance; upon the Judgment Debtor's failure to honour the settlement terms, the Decree Holder acquired the right to pursue satisfaction of the decrees. ¶20

Mohd. Nadeem Vs Sushma Choudhary — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the original decree dated 22.01.2018 stood novated/satisfied by the mediation settlements (01.09.2022 and 05.04.2025), or whether upon the Judgment Debtor's default the Decree Holder remained entitled to pursue execution and satisfaction of the decree. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order was correct in recognising the Judgment Debtor's default and that the default provisions of the settlements had come into play, requiring satisfaction of the decree dated 22.01.2018.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the settlements did not fructify as agreed, jurisdiction vested with the Executing Courts to consider execution of the decrees in favour of the Decree Holder, and the Judgment Debtor must satisfy the same subject to whatever acceptable pleas may be available in accordance with law.ratio¶24
The Judgment Debtor's contention that mediation settlements are binding and must be construed to promote finality was rejected, because the settlement terms themselves contained contingent provisions providing for reversal in the event of non-compliance.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anish Dayal, J., oral) dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC by the Judgment Debtor against dismissal of his application under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC for recording satisfaction of a compromise decree dated 22.01.2018 (Rs.44,00,000/- plus interest) in Execution Petition No.149/2020. The mediation settlements dated 01.09.2022 and 05.04.2025 (Rs.78,00,000/- payable in six instalments) were held to be self-executory and not to survive upon the Judgment Debtor's default in paying the third instalment due 20.06.2025; the default clauses (Clauses 7-11, 18) entitled the Decree Holder to press execution and obtain the fruits of the decree dated 22.01.2018. The Judgment Debtor's claim that the Turkman Gate property (valued by him at approx. Rs.54,00,000/-) be adjusted against the dues was not accepted, the impugned order recognising the default being held 'not amiss'; jurisdiction vested with the Executing Courts, leaving the Judgment Debtor free to raise pleas available in law. The contention that mediation settlements must be construed to promote finality was rejected as the settlements contained their own contingent reversal provisions. Petition dismissed; pending applications rendered infructuous.

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 06^th April 2026

¶4

- C.R.P. 32/2026 & CM APPL. 7765/2026

¶5

MOHD. NADEEM .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Akul Mehandru, Ms Medhavi Bhatia, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SUSHMA CHOUDHARY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Prasanna, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Kanav Gupta, Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Ms. Avantika Shanker, Mr. Sarthak, Mr. Deepak, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

ANISH DAYAL, J (Oral)

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’), impugning order dated 15^th January 2006, passed by the District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in Execution Petition No.149/2020 . By the impugned order, the application of petitioner [ Judgment Debtor ] under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC for recording satisfaction of the decree was dismissed. Petitioner/ Judgment Debtor and respondent [ Decree Holder ] are parties to multiple litigations arising out of a common set of transactions, which led to a few settlements between the parties.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶15

C.R.P. 32/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 9

¶17

In CS No. 2828/2017 titled as “ Sushma Chaudhary v. Mohd. Nadeem ”, a compromise decree was passed on 22^nd January 2018, wherein petitioner/ Judgment Debtor agreed to pay Rs.44,00,000 /- to respondent/ Decree Holder along with interest. Respondent/ Decree Holder filed an Execution Petition No.149/2020 in February 2020. On 10^th July 2022, petitioner/ Judgment Debtor made a statement before the Trial Court that he shall transfer property bearing “ House No.2110, 3^rd Floor, Fasil Road, Turkman Gate, Delhi- 110006 ” [“ Turkman Gate Property ”] and hand over possession of the same to respondent/ Decree Holder .

¶18

Additionally, petitioner/ Judgment Debtor stated that he will purchase one commercial shop in “ Omaxe Arcade Commercial Shopping Complex situated at Ansal Gold Link-I, Greater Noida, UP 201310” in the name of respondent/ Decree Holder in case of failure to make required payment of Rs.23,00,000 /- to respondent/ Decree Holder . As per petitioner/ Judgement Debtor , he executed the Sale Deed of the Turkman Gate property in favour of the respondent/ Decree Holder on 4^th August 2022.

¶19

A Mediation Settlement dated 1^st September 2022 was arrived at, which settled all litigations between parties. However, despite executing the Sale Deed, physical possession of the Turkman Gate property could not be handed over since there was a tenant, who was not vacating the said premises.

¶20

In the meantime, respondent/ Decree Holder filed an application for setting aside the Mediation settlement, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 4^th July 2023. The tenant [ Faisal Khan ] also filed his objections, which were dismissed vide order dated 4^th July 2023. 6. In the meantime, on 7^th June 2023, in Execution Petition No.2064/2019 , titled as “ Aster Handicrafts Ltd. v. Mohd. Nadeem ”, the Civil

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶23

C.R.P. 32/2026

¶24

Page 2 of 9

¶25

Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, while executing decree dated 1^st September 2022, issued warrants of attachment of the Turkman Gate property . The tenant [ Faisal Khan ] preferred an appeal and the said order was stayed by the Additional District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, on 8^th July 2023. Both execution petitions were transferred to the same Court and listed on 3^rd April 2025 and thereafter on 4^th April 2025. On 5^th April 2025, another settlement was arrived at whereby petitioner/ Judgement Debtor agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.78,00,000 /- to respondent/ Decree Holder in respect of all disputes.

¶26

It was agreed that upon payment of Rs.78,00,000 /-, petitioner/ Judgement Debtor’s property at Turkman Gate was to be returned to petitioner/ Judgement Debtor . There were various other provisions in the settlement which took care of various contingencies and possibilities. The Settlement dated 5^th April 2025 was approved before the Executing Court by order dated 29^th May 2025. Petitioner/ Judgement Debtor paid first two instalments to the respondent/ Decree Holder aggregating to Rs.20,00,000/- but could not pay the third instalment due on 20^th June 2025.

¶27

Pursuant to the settlement of 1^st April 2025, petitioner/ Judgement Debtor submits that he himself, on 5^th July 2025, requested the Executing Court to attach the properties including the Turkman Gate property for the remaining amount to be paid. However, in Execution Petition No.2064/2019 , vide order dated 19^th August 2025, the Civil Judge was pleased to issue warrants of possession in respect of the Turkman Gate property which was handed over to respondent/ Decree Holder on 3^rd September 2025.

¶28

The property being valued at about Rs.54,00,000/- , as per a Government approved Valuer, petitioner/ Judgement Debtor made out a case

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶31

C.R.P. 32/2026

¶32

Page 3 of 9

¶33

that the same ought to be accounted for in the Execution Proceedings. Petitioner/ Judgement Debtor’s case, therefore, is that out of the settlement amount of Rs.78,00,000 /-, they have paid Rs.20,00,000/- through funds transfer and Rs.54,00,000/- by providing the sale and possession of the Turkman Gate property . Petitioner/ Judgement Debtor offered to pay another Rs.4,00,000 /- and, in an application moved under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC, offered to pay any differential amount after adjusting the value of the flat. 10. Respondent/ Decree Holder , however, refused to accept the cheque of Rs.4,00,000 /-, stating that the property was not of requisite value and instead placed reliance on the settlement dated 5^th April 2025. Respondent/ Decree Holder took the position that as per the provisions of the settlement dated 5^th April 2025, particularly Clause 7, 9 and 10 , respondent/ Decree Holder had the right to proceed to obtain the fruits of decree dated 22^nd January 2018, which had now mounted to more than Rs.1,45,00,000 /-. 11. Counsel for respondent/ Decree Holder admitted, on instructions, that possession of the Turkman Gate property was now with the respondents/ Decree Holder . Heavy reliance was placed on the Mediation Settlement dated 5^th April 2025, in particular Clause 18 , to the effect that in case there is violation of payment of the instalments, the property shall be auctioned to satisfy the decree dated 22^nd January 2018. Objections were also placed under Order XXI Rule 2(3) of CPC on the basis that any payment or adjustment which had not been certified or recorded shall not be recognized by a Court executing the decree.

¶34

Respondent/ Decree Holder further submitted that the valuation of the property was only about Rs.18,00,000 /- and had been taken by ‘ Aster Handicrafts Ltd. ’ and not by respondent/ Decree Holder herself.

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶37

C.R.P. 32/2026

¶38

Page 4 of 9

¶39

Respondent/ Decree Holder [ Sushma Choudhary ] had also enclosed her No Objection Certificates [ NOCs ] for auction of the property, in terms of Clause 18 of the Settlement dated 5^th April 2025, due to violation of payment terms. 13. Dr. Amit George , counsel for petitioner/ Judgement Debtor , contended that original Decree dated 22^nd January 2018 stood novated by the Mediation Settlement dated 1^st September 2022, which was recognized by the Executing Court by order dated 4^th July 2023. Subsequent settlement dated 5^th April 2025, as per which, the amount of Rs.78,00,000 /- was to be paid in six instalments, had already been partly complied with, where two instalments had been paid and balance amount would be satisfied by the value of the Turkman Gate property being approximately Rs.54,00,000 /-, along with an undertaking to pay balance amount of Rs.4,00,000 /-.

¶40

By impugned order, the application under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC was decided relying on the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 5^th April 2025. Since, petitioner/ Judgment Debtor had failed to fulfil the terms of the settlement, it was held that the aspect of transferring or calculating the value of the flat became secondary. The settlement had provided that if petitioner/ Judgment Debtor fails to pay any of the instalments, respondent/ Decree Holder will be entitled to pursue the present execution case.

¶41

Statement of petitioner/ Judgment Debtor which was recorded on 17^th April 2025, extracted in the impugned order as under:

¶42

“ in case of my failure to fulfill my obligations to any term or any condition, as mentioned in Para No. 7, 8(a) & 8(b), either it will be fully or partly, whichever these are and/or will be, the Decree Holder Smt. Sushma Choudhary shall be free from her all the

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶45

C.R.P. 32/2026

¶46

Page 5 of 9

¶47

obligations/terms and conditions, as mentioned in Para 8(c) to 8(e) of the noted above Settlement Dated: 05.04.2025 Ex.JD/B, which is executed by me in the presence of my Ld. Counsel and in that case, she shall be entitled to peruse and press her present Execution Petition, as well as all other connected matters which are mentioned in the Settlement Dated: 05.04.2025 (Ex.JD/B), as per the default clauses of the Settlement Dated: 05.04.2025 (Ex.JD/B) from Para No.9 to 27.”

¶48

Therefore, impugned order held that the amount of Rs.20,00,000 /- could be adjusted from the decretal amount, but the Nazir has calculated the decretal amount after deducting Rs.20,00,000 /- as Rs.1,08,27,457 /-. Adjustment of the property at Rs.54,00,000 /- was not accepted, considering the settlements stood terminated on account of default by petitioner/ Judgment Debtor . Respondent/ Decree Holder’s submission that possession had been taken over by ‘ Aster Handicrafts Ltd. ’ being a company, whereas the respondent/ Decree Holder in the present case was an individual, would have to be considered on two different platforms.

¶49

Respondent /Decree Holder submitted that respondent /Decree Holder and ‘ Aster Handicrafts Ltd. ’ were entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,72,84,000 /- from the following:

¶50

S.No.	Court Case Details	Decretal Amount
1.	Ex. (DJ) Petition No.149/20	Rs.44,00,000/- Date of Judgment: 22.01.2018.
2.	Ex. (CJ) Petition No.2064/19	Rs.68,00,000/- Date of Judgment: 27.09.2017.
3.	M. Ex. (DJ) Petition No.592/25	Rs.20,00,000/- Date of Judgment: 05.04.2025.

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL C.R.P. 32/2026 KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶53

Page 6 of 9

¶54

Civil Suit (DJ) No.272/2020 Amounting to Rs.29,93,660/- filed on 11.03.2020

¶55

Out of the said dues, as per respondent /Decree Holder , only Rs.20,00,000 /- has been paid and a ‘ Flat ’ with an approximate sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000 /-, registered in the name of respondent /Decree Holder , would need to be auctioned in order to arrange the money to satisfy the decree. Moreover, petitioner/ Judgement Debtor had already filed a Civil Suit bearing no. CS(DJ) No.475/2025 , seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed of the ‘ Flat ’ pending before the District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts.

¶56

Analysis

¶57

The Court has perused the settlements. In the settlement of 5^th July 2025, particularly in paragraph 18 , it is stated that if Mohd. Nadeem [petitioner/ Judgement Debtor ] fails to pay the entire amount of Rs.78,00,000 /- due for any reason whatsoever on or before 20^th September 2025 in compliance with the settlement dated 5^th April 2025, or fails to pay any part of the entire money of Rs.78,00,000 /- before the said date, then Sushma Choudhury [respondent/ Decree Holder ] shall have all the rights to press and proceed and also to obtain the fruits of all the court decrees/compensations/penalties as per law.

¶58

A perusal of the settlements would show that they were self-executory and would not survive in the event of non-compliance, and that they conferred the right upon respondent /Decree Holder to pursue the satisfaction of the decrees upon failure to honour the terms of settlement.

¶59

The impugned order is, therefore, not amiss in recognising that there is a default and these settlement provisions would come into play, where the

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL C.R.P. 32/2026 KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶62

Page 7 of 9

¶63

decree dated 22^nd January 2018, would have to be satisfied. The settlement dated 5^th April 2025 sought to put to rest various disputes between the parties, inter alia , emanating out of decree dated 22^nd January 2018.

¶64

As per Clause 7 , Rs.78,00,000 /- was agreed to be paid in six instalments, and upon compliance, as per Clause 8 , various actions were to be taken by the parties in order to withdraw various petitions and transfer the residential property. Clause 9 clearly stated that, in case the terms are not complied with, the obligation to withdraw petitions would become ‘ null and void ’ and would have no legal effect. Clause 10 , also provided liberty to respondent/ Decree Holder [ Sushma Choudhury ] to press and proceed in all noted cases and to obtain the fruits of the court decrees/compensations/penalties. It was also noted that petitioner/Judgement Debtor [ Mohd. Nadeem ] shall have no right to object to the same in any manner whatsoever. Similar terms were provided in Clause 11 as well.

¶65

Yet again another settlement was arrived at on 5^th July 2025, noting the previous settlement of 5^th April 2025 and 1^st September 2022, and it was recorded that Rs.20,00,000/- had been paid pursuant to settlement of 5^th April 2025. It was agreed that the settlement dated 5^th April 2025 shall continue to remain intact and fully in force. The Mediation Settlement of 5^th July 2025 was to be restricted to the Civil Suit (DJ) No.272/2020 pending before the District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts and was to be in addition to the settlement dated 5^th April 2025.

¶66

What read as a rather convoluted set of terms and conditions provided in these settlement agreements, as is apparent ex- facie on a bare perusal thereof, one thing is quite clear, namely, that the settlements have not fructified in the manner agreed to and, therefore, jurisdiction vests with the

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶69

C.R.P. 32/2026

¶70

Page 8 of 9

¶71

Executing Courts to consider execution of the decrees in favour of the respondent or any other party, and for petitioner/ Judgement Debtor to satisfy the same, subject to whatever acceptable pleas may be available in accordance with law.

¶72

The argument of counsel for petitioner/ Judgement Debtor that mediation settlements are binding and must be construed to promote finality cannot be accepted, considering that the settlement terms itself include contingent provisions providing for reversal, in the event that compliance was not made, as is usually provided by parties in order to protect themselves from non-compliance of settlement agreements.

¶73

Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in the pleas which have been taken by the petitioner/ Judgement Debtor . The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶74

Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

¶75

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶76

(ANISH DAYAL) JUDGE

¶77

APRIL 6, 2026/ ak/tk

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL C.R.P. 32/2026 KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:24.04.2026 19:13:01

¶80

Page 9 of 9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of the Judgment Debtor's application under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC for recording satisfaction of the decree in Execution Petition No.149/2020.¶1
District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi · 15th January 2006 (as printed)
Prior proceeding
Compromise decree dated 22.01.2018 in CS No. 2828/2017 (Sushma Chaudhary v. Mohd. Nadeem): Judgment Debtor agreed to pay Rs.44,00,000/- to Decree Holder along with interest.¶2
Prior proceeding
Decree Holder filed Execution Petition No.149/2020 in February 2020.¶2
Prior proceeding
On 10.07.2022 the Judgment Debtor stated before the Trial Court that he would transfer the Turkman Gate property and hand over possession to the Decree Holder.¶2
Prior proceeding
Sale Deed of the Turkman Gate property executed in favour of the Decree Holder on 04.08.2022 (as per Judgment Debtor).¶3
Prior proceeding
Mediation Settlement dated 01.09.2022 settling all litigations between the parties.¶4
Prior proceeding
Decree Holder's application for setting aside the Mediation settlement dismissed by the Trial Court on 04.07.2023.¶5
Prior proceeding
Objections of tenant Faisal Khan dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2023.¶5
Prior proceeding
On 07.06.2023, in Execution Petition No.2064/2019 (Aster Handicrafts Ltd. v. Mohd. Nadeem), the Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, while executing decree dated 01.09.2022, issued warrants of attachment of the Turkman Gate property.¶6
Prior proceeding
Tenant appealed; the attachment order was stayed by the Additional District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, on 08.07.2023.¶6
Prior proceeding
Settlement dated 05.04.2025: Judgment Debtor agreed to pay a total of Rs.78,00,000/- to the Decree Holder in respect of all disputes.¶6
Prior proceeding
Settlement dated 05.04.2025 approved before the Executing Court by order dated 29.05.2025.¶7
Prior proceeding
Judgment Debtor paid first two instalments aggregating Rs.20,00,000/- but defaulted on the third instalment due 20.06.2025.¶7
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 19.08.2025 in Execution Petition No.2064/2019 the Civil Judge issued warrants of possession of the Turkman Gate property; possession handed over to the Decree Holder on 03.09.2025.¶8
Prior proceeding
Further settlement dated 05.07.2025, noting the settlements of 05.04.2025 and 01.09.2022 and recording payment of Rs.20,00,000/-, restricted to Civil Suit (DJ) No.272/2020 and in addition to the 05.04.2025 settlement.¶23
Prior proceeding
Judgment Debtor had filed CS(DJ) No.475/2025 seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed of the Flat, pending before the District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts.¶18

Mohd. Nadeem v. Sushma Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Nadeem v. Sushma Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Universal Sompo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Arti Vishnoi and Ors.

Sh Jamshaid Ali Vs Sh Moohammad & Ors.

Tushar Kant Vs Sanjay Sharma & Ors.

Sumitra Vs Tejveer Singh Kardam

Rama Gautam Vs Sunil Sharma & Ors.

Sanjeev Sagar & Ors. Vs Imperial Fastners Private Limited & Ors.