Delhi District Court
Shri Sukhminder Singh vs Shri Lekh Ram on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Susheel Bala Dagar
CNR No. DLWT01-006260-2025
MCA No. 9/25
Shri Sukhminder Singh
S/o Shri Puran Singh
R/o 753, Baba Faridpuri,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi .....Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Lekh Ram (deceased)
through His legal Heirs:-
(i) Smt. Ghoghri Devi
W/o late Lekh Ram
(ii) Shri Rajbir
S/o late Lekh Ram
(iii) Shri Dharmbir
S/o late Lekh Ram
All R/o WZ-33, Shadipur,
New Delhi-110008.
(iv) Shri Sukhbir
S/o Late Shri Lekh Ram
R/o 2541, Shadipur,
New Delhi-110008.
(v) Smt. Raj Dulari
W/o Shri Prem Kumar
R/o 5, Birwa Jatwara
Bahadurgarh (Haryana)-124507
(vi) Smt. Raj Rani
W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar
R/o D-102, Krishna Para
Khampur Devli Road,
New Delhi
2. Shri Sadhu Ram
S/o Shri Late Khem Chand
R/o WZ-95, Shadipur,
New Delhi.
MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 1 of 10
Digitally signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA
BALA DAGAR
Date: 2025.07.10
DAGAR 16:46:54 +0530
3. Shri Raj Kumar
S/o Shri Late Khem Chand
R/o WZ-95, Shadipur,
New Delhi.
4. Shri Hari Prakash
S/o Late Shri Chandgi Ram
R/o WZ-81, Shadipur,
New Delhi.
5. Smt. Daya Wati
W/o late Shri Jiya Lal
R/o WZ-32, Shadipur
New Delhi.
6. Smt. Satyawati
W/o Late Ved Parkash
R/o WZ-32, Shadipur,
New Delhi. ....Respondents
Date of institution of case : 01.07.2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 09.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.07.2025
Decision : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT:
Present Shri Harshwardhan Singh, Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Vide this order I shall disposed of the appeal against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Court of Shri Dev Chaudhary, Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC in execution petition no. 225/23 titled as Lekh Ram (deceased) and others v. Sukhminder Singh. Alongwith with the above application, two more applications, one under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 CPC for stay and another application under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC for exemption is moved on behalf of the appellant.
Arguments on the appeal have already been heard yesterday. The trial Court record was summoned on robkar yesterday itself. However, it is pertinent to mention that on the MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 2 of 10 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2025.07.10 DAGAR 16:46:58 +0530 robkar Ahlmad has mentioned the date as 01.07.2025 but the trial Court record was not summoned on 01.07.2025, it was summoned yesterday only. Ahlmad is counseled to prepare correct robkar whenever summoning any record from the trial Court.
Brief facts as mentioned in the appeal.
It is submitted in the appeal that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (Main) No. 2108/2023 passed an order thereby directing the Ld. trial Court to decide the application (objections) of the appellant within three months from 03.01.2024. It was also directed that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month to the respondents. The appellants paid the said amount for three months but the Ld. trial Court did not decide the objections, ultimately the appellant was dispossessed by a Court bailiff and process took time of about four to six months. The appellant was liable to pay the aforesaid amount till disposal. An execution was filed by the respondent thereby disclosing the Court some movable assets but since the appellant was not residing on the said address, the execution could not be satisfied. The appellant filed objections to the execution petition to the effect that new developments have come but Court dismissed the said application and further imposed a costs of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard by the Ld. trial Court. The Ld. trial Court issued a notice of arrest warrant to the appellant and the appellant filed reply to the said arrest warrants, stating that the appellant has no means to pay any amount. The Court without waiting for the Counsel for the appellant decided the application MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 3 of 10 of the respondent for issuance of arrest warrants. Being aggrieved from the said order dated 13.06.2025, the present appeal is being preferred.
It is mentioned that the following grounds also arise :
It is submitted that the Ld. Court has not taken into consideration the amount to be paid by the appellant to the respondent and without calculating the same has issued the arrest warrants. The Ld. Court passed the impugned order in a rash and negligent manner. Ld. Court has not directed the appellant to file affidavit of his assets. The Ld. Court has not taken into consideration the formalities required as per law and the procedure to the adopted by the Court, as firstly only the bailiff is to be directed to bring the appellant in the Court but the Court directly issued the warrants of arrest and directed the DCP concerned to execute the warrants of arrest. The Ld. Court has not even passed the order thereby directing the respondents to complete the formalities of depositing the amount. The Ld. Counsel ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to pay certain amount and disclose everything to the appellant, as he was in Court and only thereafter the arrest warrants can be issued. The Ld. Court has not taken into consideration that the arrest warrants can only be issued in case the person is deliberately avoiding to execute the decree. The Ld. trial Court has passed an order without applying its judicial mind and without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and reply filed by the appellant to the application of the respondent for obtaining arrest warrants.
Record perused.
MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 4 of 10
SUSHEEL Digitally
by SUSHEEL
signed
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2025.07.10
DAGAR 16:47:01 +0530
Perusal of the record shows that one execution bearing no. 225/23 titled as Lekh Ram (deceased) v. Sukhminder Singh were filed before the Ld. trial Court wherein the executing Court had issued warrants of possession with respect to the property in question. The said order dated 29.11.2023 was passed for implementation of the decree dated 21.12.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 555/12, upheld by the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2017 in RCA No. 369/16 and than by the Hon'ble High Court in regular second appeal i.e. RSA No. 17/2018. The said order dated 29.11.2023 of the executing Court was impugned by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court in CM (M) 2108/2023 titled as Sukhminder Singh v. Lekh Ram (deceased) through LRs and others wherein the appellant had asked for restoration of the execution petition no. 921/17 previously filed by the respondents i.e. decree holder as he had filed certain objections pending consideration in the said execution petition as well as for restoration of the possession so that the petitioner (appellant) in this case be put to reasonable terms for continuing to be in possession pending the determination of the said objections. Before the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner (appellant in this case) showed his willingness to pay use and occupation charges of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2023 until the adjudication and disposal of the objections by the executing Court. Further, the appellant under took before the Hon'ble High Court that in the event, the objections are dismissed, the petitioner (appellant in this case) would remain bound to pay the said use and occupation charges until the handing over of the possession.
MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 5 of 10
SUSHEEL Digitally
by SUSHEEL
signed
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2025.07.10
DAGAR 16:47:06 +0530
On such undertaking on behalf of the appellant (petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court in CM (M) 2108/2023), the Hon'ble High Court while allowing the restoration of possession to the appellant passed the following order dated 19.12.2023 the relevant portions of which are quoted as under :
"...12. In these circumstances, in order to balance the interest of the parties, this Court while directing restoration of possession of the suit property to the petitioner accepts his undertaking that he will pay use and occupation charges of Rs. 50,000/- per month to the decree holder w.e.f. 01.12.2023 until the disposal of the objections by the Executing Court. In the event, the objections are dismissed, the petitioner will remain liable to pay the use and occupation charges until the date of handing over the peaceful and vacant possession to the decree holders...
...
...16. The parties agree that to expedite the execution proceedings, the erstwhile execution petition no. 921/2017 be restored as the objections of the petitioner have been filed therein. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, execution petition no. 921/2017 is restored to its original number and is directed to be heard and tried alongwith execution petition no. 225/2023 pending before the Executing Court...
...
...18. The Executing Court is requested to hear a decide the said objections preferably within a period of three (3) months from 03.01.2024 i.e. the next date of hearing already fixed before it.
...
...20. The petitioner has given an undertaking to this Court that there will be no default in making the payment of the use and occupation charges of Rs. 50,000/- per month, which undertaking has been accepted. It is made clear that if there is any default, it will attract interest of 12% per month. In case of default, the recovery of use and occupation charges along with interest will also be a subject matter of the execution proceedings..."
Thereafter the execution petition was restored restoring the objections raised by the appellant/ JD before the Ld. Trial Court.
MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 6 of 10
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.07.10
16:47:10 +0530
Arguments on the objection on behalf of JD were heard on 02.03.2024 (when objections were traced out before the Ld. Trial Court) and arguments also heard on 18.05.2024. On 18.05.2024 application under Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of DH for directions to the JD to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court regarding payment of occupation charges to the DH. On 06.07.2024 JD made a statement in the Court submitting that he intends to exercise the option made available to him in case of default as per para 20 of order dated 19.12.2023 of Hon'ble High Court that he is ready to pay the interest of 12% per month in case his objections are dismissed. On that day it was clarified by Ld. Executing Court in the order dated 06.07.2024 itself that the Hon'ble High Court has given clear directions as to how to proceed in case of default but that does not entitle the JD to commit the default as a matter of right. Hence, JD was directed to comply with the order dated 19.12.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court and pay the user and occupation charges to the DH. Despite the directions JD/ appellant failed to make the payments which recorded in the order dated 08.08.2024 of the executing Court. The objections raised by the appellant / JD were dismissed by way of detailed order dated 24.09.2024 of the Ld. Executing Court. Thereafter review filed by the JD/ appellant against the order dismissing the objections was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2024 alongwith costs of Rs. 50,000/- by the Ld. Executing Court. Needless to say that the said order dismissing the said order has not been challenged by the JD till date. On 23.10.2024 the DH obtained the possession of the suit property.
MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 7 of 10
SUSHEEL Digitally
by SUSHEEL
signed
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2025.07.10
DAGAR 16:47:14 +0530
Thereafter DH moved an application as mentioned in order dated 30.11.2024 of Ld. Executing Court, for enforcement of the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court regarding user and occupation charges. The JD / appellant was already having notice of the same and had given undertaking with the regard to the user and occupation charges in the form of separate statement recorded on 06.07.2024. Hence, JD/ appellant had deemed notice of the same. Hence, while order dated 30.11.2024 the Ld. Executing Court issued warrant of attachment of movable property of the JD for the amount due along with the cost due while order dated 30.11.2024. Thereafter, again while order dated 16.01.2025 fresh warrant of attachment were issued against the JD/ appellant. On 15.02.2025 one application raising fresh objections was moved on behalf of the JD/ appellant before the Executing Court which were dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2025 of the Ld. Executing Court. In the said order the overall conduct of the JD/ appellant has been highlighted by the Ld. Executing Court and again fresh warrants of attachment were issued.
Thereafter on 02.05.2025 an application for issuance of warrants of arrest of the JD/ appellant had moved on behalf of the DH. Notice of the application was given to the JD/ appellant and time was granted for reply arguments on the application on 13.06.2024. Thereafter on considering the reply and referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 3640-3642 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8490-8492 of 2020) titled as Periyammal (dead) through LRs and ors. v. V. Rajamani and anr. etc . and the conduct of the JD in MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 8 of 10 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2025.07.10 DAGAR 16:47:19 +0530 unnecessarily delaying the matter as also mentioned in the order dated 03.03.2025, the Ld. Executing Court allowed the application of DH for issuance of warrants of arrest. It has been specifically mentioned that the JD/ appellant is not found on the address disclosed by him in the execution. It is pertinent to mention that the same address has been given by the JD while filing this appeal which clearly shows that the JD is deliberately not disclosing his address for execution of warrant of attachment against him due to which the executing Court was constraint to allow the application moved on behalf of the DH for arrest of the JD. In such circumstances any interference in the impugned order of Ld. Executing / Trial Court is uncalled for. Moreso, when the JD/ appellant is not found to be complying the specific directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed vide order dated 19.12.2023. Instead the appellant/ JD is found to be misrepresenting that he was asked by the Hon'ble High Court to make payment for only three months. The observation of para 18 of the Hon'ble High Court is regarding preferable disposal in three months and no where mandatory in nature for the Ld. Executing/ Trial Court. Moreover, the trial Court is found to be making sincere efforts to follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periyammal (dead) through LRs (supra).
Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Executing/ trial Court and the appeal is found to be bereft of merits. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/ JD stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the appellant/ JD to be deposited before the Ld. Trial Court. As the appeal has been disposed of, the remaining application for stay and MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 9 of 10 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2025.07.10 DAGAR 16:47:24 +0530 exemption to file certified copy stands disposed of being infructuous.
Ld. Executing Court /Trial Court record be sent back by the Ahlmad immediately to the concerned Court alongwith copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2025.07.10 16:47:29 +0530 Announced in the open Court Susheel Bala Dagar on this 10th Day of July 2025 District Judge-08 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (This judgment contains 10 pages) MCA DJ 9/25 Shri Sukhminder Singh v. Shri Lekh Ram Page No. 10 of 10