Delhi District Court
Rajkumar vs Poonam on 17 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 221/2025
CNR NO. DLWT01-006284/2025
In the matter of :
1. Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Veer Pal,
R/o WZ-38C, Mansarovar Garden,
New Delhi - 110015.
2. Sh. Kumar Pal
S/o Late Sh. Veer Pal,
R/o WZ-38C, Mansarovar Garden,
New Delhi - 110015.
..... Revisionists
VERSUS
Smt. Poonam
W/o Sh. Suraj Pal
D/o Sh. Fateh Chand
R/o A-121, 3rd & 4th Floor,
Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.07.2025
Date of reserving order : 14.07.2025
Date of pronouncement : 17.07.2025
Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 1 of 10
ORDER
1. The present revision has been filed by the Revisionists/Objectors assailing the orders dated 04.06.2025,
06.06.2025, 09.06.2025 and 27.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court-03), West District (herein after referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court') in Execution Crl. No. 257/2023 titled as Poonam Vs. Suraj Pal, whereby in view of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. Trial Court denied the request of examination of witnesses of the Objectors and finally vide order dated 27.06.2025 Ld. Trial Court directed to sell the property bearing No. WZ-38C/1, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Property in question') by way of Public Auction.
Arguments addressed on behalf of Revisionists/Objectors
2. Ld. Counsel for the Revisionists/Objectors submitted that Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2025 and 06.06.2025 impleaded the Objectors/Revisionists herein, as necessary parties but denied the examination of their witnesses without giving proper opportunity to them. Further, vide order dated 06.06.2025, the property in question was attached and the valuation report from the concerned SDM was called. Vide order dated 27.06.2025, Ld. Trial Court soon after summer vacations, hurriedly ordered auction of entire 'Property in question' of Objectors.
Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 2 of 103. Ld. Counsel has argued that the revisionists/objectors are the owners of 'Property in question' which has been wrongly attached in Execution Petition against the JD, who is real brother of the Objectors. However, as per the family settlement arrived, the JD/husband of the respondent has no right over the 'Property in question'. Hence, the said orders are assailed.
4. To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists/objectors has placed reliance upon the following judgments :
a. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in EFA (OS) 17/2024 titled as Mohinder Singh (Since deceased) Through LRs & Ors. Vs. Bimal Saxena (Deceased) through Assignee Virender Singh & Anr., has observed that :
"11. One of the objections that the appellants/judgment debtors had taken was pivoted on the provisions of Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, "CPC"].
12. xxxx 12.1 Based on this amendment which is extended to Delhi, the appellants/judgment debtors asserted that since the suit property was the only residential house available to them, it could not be attached and sold in the execution proceedings. 19.1 The following observations made in V P Arora being apposite are extracted hereafter:
"10. As already noticed, the underlying object of Section 60 (ccc) is not to displace a judgment-debtor from the main residential house in execution of a money decree. It hardly matters whether he owned the house when degree [sic:decree] was passed or he comes to own the house at a time when it is sought to Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 3 of 10 be attached or sold. That is why the law framers used the word „or‟ between attachment and sale. The last relevant time would be the date of sale and if on the date of sale a residential house is owned by the judgment-debtor, it would not be sold and will have to be released from attachment."
20. Given this position, as noticed above, on the plain language of Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, we are constrained to rule in favour of the appellants /judgment debtors. The subject property being the appellants'/judgment debtors' "one main residential house", it cannot be attached and sold in execution proceedings."
b. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in EPA (OS) 14/2019 titled as Bimal Saxena Vs. Kamaljeet Singh, has observed that :
"7. Some necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal at the admission stage itself are that the appellant had filed an execution EFA(OS) 14/2019 petition seeking to execute a decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court which decree stands duly modified by order dated 14.02.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The operative portion of order dated 14.02.2012 reads as under :
"7. Taking on record the compromise aforesaid the appeal stands disposed of setting aside the impugned decree dated December 20, 1996 and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed passing a decree in sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five crores only) by way of compensation payable by the defendant (through legal heirs); the sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- payable as compensation would be paid in two installments, being Rs.1,00,00,000/- to be paid within three months from today and the balance sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to be paid within nine months thereafter and in case of Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 4 of 10 default, the respective amount payable towards compensation would be paid together with interest @9% per annum (simple interest) reckoned from the due date of payment till paid."
8. During pendency of the execution petition, the decree holder made an application being E.A. No.61/2018 seeking attachment of the residential house of the judgment debtor. An objection was raised by the judgment debtor that the said house cannot be attached under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned Single Judge had allowed the objection, which has led to the filing of the present appeal."
c. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as V. P. Arora Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in II(1992) BC 542 (Del), has observed that :
"(3) The underlying object of section 60(ccc) is not to displace a judgment- debtor from the main residential house in execution of a money decree. It hardly matters whether he owned the house when decree was passed or he comes to own the house at a time when it is sought to be attached or sold. That is why the law framers used the word 'or` between attachment and sale, The last relevant time would be the date of sale and if on the date of sale a residential house is owned by the judgment-debtor, it would not be sold and will have to be released from attachment."
Arguments addressed on behalf of respondent
5. Per contra, respondent has herself argued at threshold that the issue raised in the present revision petition has already been Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 5 of 10 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 11.04.2023, therefore, the same cannot be decided by this Court again.
6. Ld. Counsel for respondent supporting the Impugned Order argued that there is no infirmity and illegality done by the Ld. Trial Court and has rightly directed to sell the 'Property in question' by way of public auction, hence, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court, in view of the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
7. The said order is annexed as Annexure - 5 of the revision petition, as Annexure - 2 in the reply to the present revision petition and also is part of the Trial Court Record.
Arguments in Rebuttal
8. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists/objectors submitted that the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was passed in other execution petitions, which have already been satisfied and the said order was not passed in execution petition assailed herein.
9. It has been argued that even otherwise the 'Property in question' is a residential property and as per Section 60(1)(c) of CPC, the same cannot be attached. However, it has been submitted by the respondent that the 'Property in question' is not undivided family property and the floors have been divided between the objectors and JD as per the own deposition during their evidence. JD has got his specific right on ground floor of the 'Property in question' and admittedly, he is residing on rent somewhere else.
Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 6 of 10Observation
10. The Court heard the arguments as advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material available on record including the Trial Court Record.
11. It has been argued by Ld. Counsels for the revisionists/objectors that as per the family settlement, JD has no right over the 'Property in question' , hence, Ld. Trial Court erred in passing direction for public auction of the 'Property in question' , however, it is an admitted case that the said oral family settlement was made in the year 2012, when the sole absolute owner of the property i.e. mother of the objectors was alive, however, she was not made party to the settlement of her property.
12. With regard to other submission advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists/objectors that the 'Property in question' is a residential property and as per Section 60(1)(c) of CPC, the same cannot be attached, it is an admitted case of the parties that the JD is residing somewhere else on a rented accommodation.
Relevant portion of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with regard to issue in question
13. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate reproduce the relevant part of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relied by both the parties, which reads as under :
"v) As regards the issue relating to attachment of Mansarovar Garden property, it is noted that the impugned order is now two years old and the objectors to such attachment, have not been able to prove their titles Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 7 of 10 as yet. This indeterminate and indefinite position cannot preclude 'P' from getting attachment of the property pursuant to her execution for the arrears. In the event the arrears are not paid by 'S', it is directed that the execution in relation to Mansarovar Garden property be concluded by the Ld. Trial Court within a period of 3 months and a conclusive order be passed in relation to the said execution."
14. A reading of aforesaid order makes it abundant clear that objectors failed to prove their title over the Property in question' and it has been ordered that in case execution petition remains unsatisfied, the attachment of 'Property in question' be made by Ld. Trial Court. Therefore, the issue raised in the present revision petition has already been decided by the Superior Court, which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as also mentioned by Ld. Trial Court in impugned order dated 04.06.2025. Therefore, principle of res judicata applies to the issue raised by the revisionists/objectors that they have not been given opportunity to prove their objections by way of examination of witnesses.
Relevant Law
15. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr. PC can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriat to reproduce Section 397 Cr. PC, which reads as under :
Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 8 of 10"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation. - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."
16. A reading of aforesaid Section makes it abundant clear that any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situated within his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court.
Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 9 of 1017. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 , has observed as under :
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.PC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
Conclusion
18. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court)-03) West, Delhi whereby Ld. Trial Court in view of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, denied the request of examination of witnesses of the Objectors and finally vide order dated 27.06.2025 Ld. Trial Court directed to sell the 'Property in question' by way of Public Auction and accordingly, the same is hereby upheld. The present revision petition is dismissed.
19. The Trial Court Record along with the copy of this order be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
20. The file of this revision petition be consigned to record room Digitally signed after due compliance. SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON Pronounced in the open TANDON Date: 2025.07.17 17:45:45 +0530 Court on 17.07.2025 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Criminal Revision No. 221/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. Poonam Page 10 of 10