Sanjay v. Daljeet Kaur Pandey

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SANJAY .....APPELLANT Through:

Mr Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Adv.

versus DALJEET KAUR PANDEY .....RESPONDENT Through:

Mr Varun Mehlaat, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 08.08.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.45535/2024 1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

EFA(COMM) 10/2024 &CM Appl.45534/2024 2.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by Mr Deepak Garg, learned District Judge (Commercial Court) -09, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in Execution Petition no.7/2024, titled Mrs. Daljit Kaur Pandey vs. Shri Sanjay. 3.

Via the impugned judgment and order, the appellant's/judgment debtor's objections qua the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 passed in CS (Comm) 447/21, titled Mrs. Daljeet Kaur Pandey vs. Sh. Sanjay stand rejected.

4.

The respondent/decree holder obtained a judgment and decree dated 1/3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

07.12.2023 in the aforementioned suit concerning the ground floor of the property described as: 5616, Basant Road,Paharganj, New Delhi [in short, "Paharganj Property"].

5.

It is not in dispute that the appellant/judgment debtor has filed a suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement dated 15.08.2017. 5.1 We are told that a civil suit which is numbered CS (COMM) 766/2023, titled Sanjay Kumar Sonker vs Keshav Raj Pandey &Anr., is pending adjudication in the Court of Sh Deepak Garg, learned District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

6.

The record also discloses that against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023, the appellant/judgment debtor had preferred an appeal, i.e., RFA (COMM) 38/2024, which was dismissed by this Court via judgment dated 08.02.2024.

7.

Mr Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/judgment debtor, says that the respondent/decree holder has incorrectly portrayed that the two "counters" rented out to the appellant/judgment debtor are located on the ground floor of the Paharganj property.

8.

This very stand was taken by the appellant/judgment debtor at the time when arguments were advanced on the application moved under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, "CPC"], and consequently, dealt with by the trial court in the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023.

2/3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

Having regard to this backdrop, Mr Mishra says that he would like to withdraw the appeal with liberty to progress his contentions in the suit for specific performance preferred by the appellant/judgment debtor which is pending adjudication.

10.

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

11.

However, the appellant/judgment debtor would be at liberty to pursue the suit for specific performance.

12.

We no have doubt that the concerned trial court will adjudicate the matter as per law.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AMIT BANSAL, J AUGUST 8, 2024/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any 3/3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.