Disposed

Mohd. Shakeel & Anr. v. Mohd. Islam (Since Deceasedthrough His Lrs & Anr.

Delhi HC14 May 2026C.R.P./64/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an execution court's warrant of possession over a shop in Daryaganj while their second appeal against the mandatory injunction decree was pending. Both parties gave undertakings allowing each other access to sell vegetables from the premises. On these undertakings the impugned execution orders became infructuous and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned execution orders dated 07.03.2026 and 17.04.2026 rendered infructuous on basis of parties' undertakings; petition disposed.

Mohd. Shakeel & Anr. Vs Mohd. Islam (Since… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

C.R.P. 64/2026, CM APPL. 16957/2026 CM APPL. 16959/2026

¶4

MOHD. SHAKEEL & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Sana Ansari, Mr. I Ahmed, Mr. Ayush Gandhi & Ms. Hardeep Kaur, Advs along with petitioner nos. 1 & 2 in person

¶6

versus

¶7

MOHD. ISLAM (SINCE DECEASEDTHROUGH HIS LRS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Vijay Gupta and Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.05.2026

¶11

Ms. Zubeda Begum , counsel for petitioner, contends that the impugned order dated 07^th March 2026 passed by Executing Court issuing warrants for possession of suit property, i.e. Shop No. 3686, Phool Mandi, Daryaganj, Delhi, as per the site plan indicated in red colour could not have been passed.

¶12

She states that the decree dated 11^th January 2022 which has been sought to be executed, merely decreed the suit partly in favour of respondents/plaintiff restraining petitioner/defendant from dispossessing respondents/plaintiff from the suit property and from obstructing respondents/plaintiff from carrying out the business of sale of vegetables, while the injunction order stood further fructified by this Court vide order dated 27^th October 2022.

¶13

A Regular Civil Appeal was filed against the said decree before the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 16/05/2026 at 11:57:01

¶16

Additional District Judge (‘ ADJ ’), and by order dated 25^th May 2023, a decree was passed for mandatory injunction, as well as, perpetual injunction to the effect that respondent/plaintiff be put into possession of the suit property and petitioner/defendants were restrained from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property.

¶17

Against the said decree dated 25^th May 2023, the petitioners have preferred an RSA No.142/2023 , which is pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and is presently listed on 14^th July 2026. 5. All the petitioners and respondents are present in Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsels. 6. In the meantime, subject to the orders passed in the Regular Second Appeal [‘ RSA ’], the petitioners have no objection to comply with the decree as passed on 25^th May 2023. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners state that, subject to the final orders in the RSA, they shall, in the meantime, comply with the decree dated 25^th May 2023, inasmuch as they shall provide unhindered access to respondents and permit them to enter the suit property and sell their vegetables, etc. from the premises. Petitioners further undertake not to interfere with the sale of vegetables, etc. by respondent from the said premises.

¶18

Mr. Vijay Gupta , counsel for respondents, on instructions, states that respondents will also not interfere with the selling of vegetables, etc by petitioners from the said premises. 9. The aforesaid undertakings have been given by both parties in the presence of their respective counsels before this Court and shall be duly complied with and the parties shall remain bound by the same. 10. Needless to state, that this is an interim arrangement which is arrived at on the basis of these undertakings and will be subject to the orders in the

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 16/05/2026 at 11:57:01

¶21

RSA.

¶22

Considering that undertakings have been given, the impugned order dated 07^th March 2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Courts in Execution 519/2025, as also order dated 17^th April 2026, shall become infructuous.

¶23

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

¶24

Copy of order be given dasti under signature of the Court Master.

¶25

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶26

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶27

MAY 14, 2026/sm/ zb

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 16/05/2026 at 11:57:01

Mohd. Shakeel & Anr. v. Mohd. Islam (Since Deceasedthrough His Lrs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shakeel & Anr. v. Mohd. Islam (Since Deceasedthrough His Lrs & 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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushiti Bharti & Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Tiwari Vs Vijay Sharma & Ors.

Lt Col Raj Kumar Vs Ram Kumar Aggarwal

Rita Arora & Anr. Vs Arvind Kumar

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manorama Singh & Ors.

M/S Madhan and Company Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.