Sarita Parwanda v. Gunjan Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
60/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT…
What did the court decide?
The objections raised by the Appellant had earlier been raised before the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court and stood rejected; they do not arise from any supervening circumstance during execution. It is trite that an Executing Court is bound by the decree as it stands and cannot travel beyond its terms or reopen issues which have attained finality between the parties. ¶32
What the court decided
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.07.2026
- EX.F.A. 60/2026, CM APPL. 45287/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 45288/2026 (Ex.)
SARITA PARWANDA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate.
versus
GUNJAN KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
% JUDGMENT (ORAL)
- The present Execution First Appeal has been filed under Order XXI Rule 58(4) read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 , seeking to set aside the Order dated 27.03.20262 passed by the learned Execution Court, District Judge-05, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi3 , in execution proceedings
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Executing Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's (JD no.2's) objections concerning the identity of the suit property and the material difference between the site plan relied upon by the Respondent and the property actually occupied by the Appellant.medium confidence¶21
The court heldThe objections raised by the Appellant had earlier been raised before the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court and stood rejected; they do not arise from any supervening circumstance during execution. It is trite that an Executing Court is bound by the decree as it stands and cannot travel beyond its terms or reopen issues which have attained finality between the parties.
Procedural history
How this case reached the court
- Order under challenge
Order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objector's application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner and her objection application under O.21 R.58 r/w S.151 CPC qua attachment proceedings.¶13
Execution Court, District Judge-05, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi · 27.03.2026
- Prior proceeding
Suit of the plaintiff (Decree Holder) decreed on 05.01.2022; defendants directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of Ground Floor property bearing no. A-139, Pocket-8, Swapan Kunj, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi.¶24
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court