Sanjeev v. Harvinder Singh Cheema & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 Bs/gsr ..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20th September, 2018. + EX.F.A. 20/2018 & CM No.22071/2018 (for stay) SANJEEV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Malhotra and Mr. Deepankar Kataria, Advs. Versus MADHUBALA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Adv. for R-1. AND + EX.F.A. 22/2018 & CM No.22201/2018 (for stay) SANJEEV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Malhotra and Mr. Deepankar Kataria, Advs. Versus HARVINDER SINGH CHEEMA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Adv. for R-1. AND + EX.F.A. 24/2018 & CM No.24160/2018 (for stay) ISHWAR SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S. Chaturvedi, Adv. Versus MADHUBALA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. These Execution First Appeals under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugn the common order [dated 26th February, 2018 in Ex. No.50847/2016 & Ex. No.50849/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge-01 (North)] of dismissal of objections filed by the appellant/s in each of these three appeals to the execution sought by the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holder (DHs) Madhubala and Dalip Singh Cheema, of the judgments and decrees [dated 16th December, 2005 in Suits No.196/2002 and 197/2002 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] and RFAs No.102/2006, 103/2006 & 104/2006 preferred whereagainst were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26th May, 2008 and Review Petition No.269/2008 in RFA No.102/2006 and Review Petition No.270/2018 in RFA No.104/2006 preferred whereagainst were dismissed on 7th November, 2008 and SLP(C) No.3682-3684/2009 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 18th January, 2010. 2. These appeals came up first before this Court on 25th May, 2018, when the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs/DHs Madhubala and Dalip Singh Cheema appeared on caveat. The appeals have thereafter been adjourned from time to time. Vide order dated 3rd July, 2018, though prima facie no merit was found in the appeals, but being First Appeals and the Trial Court files having not been requisitioned till then, requisitioning the Trial Court files, the hearing was adjourned to today. 3. The counsel for the appellant in Ex.F.As. No.20/2018 & 22/2018 and the counsel for the appellant in Ex.F.A. No.24/2018 have been heard. The counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff/DH Madhubala has also been heard. 4. The decrees under execution, in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs/ DHs Madhubala and Dalip Singh Cheema and against Gurdeep Kaur, Bua Singh and Deepak Kakkar (in Suit No.197/2002) and against Gurdeep Kaur, Surender Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Bhagirath (in Suit No.196/2002) were for recovery of possession of immoveable property, being plots of land shown in site plan, proved in the suit and which plots were described in the plaint and the judgment as plots no.10 and 11 situated in Khasra No.93/9/1 in the revenue estate of village Rithala on the basis of title acquired vide registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs/DHs Madhubala and Dalip Singh Cheema. 5. The objections in execution were filed by the appellants/objectors stating, that they were in possession of plots of land in Khasra No.93/3 and had an independent title to the plots in their possession. 6. The Executing Court, vide the impugned orders, dismissed the objections inter alia reasoning that the defendants/judgment debtors (JDs) in the suit had also contested the suit claiming that the property was situated in Khasra No.93/3 and not in Khasra No.93/9/1, as claimed by respondents/plaintiffs/DHs Madhubala and Dalip Singh Cheema and it was decided in the suit and upheld till the Supreme Court that the plots in possession of the defendants/JDs and for recovery of possession of which the suit was filed were situated in Khasra No.93/9/1, as claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs/DHs Madhubala and Dalip Singh Chee