Seema Malhotra v. Rakesh Nagpal

Delhi High Court · 08 Apr 2025 · 2025:DHC:2497
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 660/2025
2025:DHC:2497
civil other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted a limited two-month extension to the judgment debtor to vacate the property in execution proceedings, subject to strict conditions and warning of contempt for non-compliance.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 660/2025 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th April, 2025
CM(M) 660/2025 & CM APPL. 20819-20820/2025
SEEMA MALHOTRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yash Gupta, Advocate Petitioner-in-person (Through VC)
VERSUS
RAKESH NAGPAL .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Indu Kaul, Advocate (Through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)
CM APPL. 20820/2025 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 660/2025 & CM APPL. 20819/2025

1. Issue raised in the present petition is very short and precise.

2. Petitioner has suffered a decree and pursuant to execution petition filed by the decree holder, the Court has issued warrants of possession with respect to the subject property bearing no. 1403, First Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. There is also direction to the Bailiff to break open the locks, if required, and concerned SHO has also been directed to render assistance.

3. Admittedly, judgment debtor has challenged the aforesaid decree and has already filed Regular First Appeal which has been registered as RFA NO. 181/2025. It is also admitted case that no stay has been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the aforesaid Regular CM(M) 660/2025 2 First Appeal.

4. The sole request coming from the side of judgment debtor is to the effect that on account of medical condition of her minor son and the fact that children of judgment debtor are to appear in examination, a period of two months may be granted to vacate the premises in question. It is submitted that on or before 09.06.2025, the keys of the aforesaid property shall be submitted before the learned Executing Court towards handing over of vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the aforesaid property.

5. Judgment debtor i.e. petitioner herein Ms. Seema Malhotra has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing and has made a specific statement to the aforesaid effect. She has also been clearly apprised that if resiles from her statement which she has made today before this Court, she might be hauled up for committing contempt of court. She submits that she has no such intention and without prejudice to her rights and contentions which she has taken in Regular First Appeal, she would vacate the premises, as aforesaid, on or before 09.06.2025.

6. Her such statement is taken on record.

7. Learned counsel or respondent/decree holder submits that in view of the above, she also would have no objection if the time is accordingly granted to her till 09.06.2025.

8. Petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with clear-cut direction to the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the property in question on or before 09.06.2025 by handing over the keys of the subject property before the learned Execution Court. In case of any disobedience of the aforesaid order, the natural consequences, including initiation of contempt proceedings, CM(M) 660/2025 3 would follow.

9. It is also clarified that under no circumstances, the aforesaid time period would be extended.

10. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

JUDGE APRIL 8, 2025 /dr/shs