Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.07.2026
45288/2026 (Ex.)
SARITA PARWANDA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Execution First Appeal has been filed under Order XXI Rule 58(4) read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[1], seeking to set aside the Order dated 27.03.2026[2] passed by the learned Execution Court, District Judge-05, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi[3], in execution proceedings
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the learned Executing Court failed to appreciate that the site plan CPC Impugned Order Executing Court relied upon by the Respondent is materially different from the actual property in occupation of the Appellant and that serious disputes exist regarding the identity of the property.
3. It is submitted that in the peculiar facts of the case, appointment of a Local Commissioner was necessary to identify the decreed property and the learned Executing Court erred in rejecting the said prayer.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and has perused the material placed on record, including the Impugned Order. The relevant paragraphs of the Impugned Order are extracted hereinbelow:
5. A perusal of the Impugned Order reveals that the learned Executing Court has specifically noticed that the very objections now sought to be urged before this Court had earlier been raised by the Appellant before the learned Trial Court as well as before the Appellate Court and stood rejected.
6. Therefore, this Court, upon consideration of the record, finds no infirmity in the aforesaid reasoning as the objections raised by the Appellant do not arise from any supervening circumstance during the course of execution proceedings. It is trite that an Executing Court is bound by the decree as it stands and cannot travel beyond its terms or reopen issues which have attained finality between the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman[4], authoritatively held that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and is required to execute the decree as it exists, unless it is shown to be a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction. The said principle has also been reiterated in
Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan[5], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that objections in execution cannot be permitted to reopen issues which have already attained finality in the original proceedings.
8. In the present case, the dispute sought to be raised with regard to the identity of the suit property is not a matter arising during execution but is one which had already been urged and adjudicated upon in the original proceedings as well as in the appeal therefrom.
9. Similarly, the prayer for appointment of a Local Commissioner cannot be permitted to be employed as a device to reopen issues already concluded by the decree. As it is well settled that once the identity of the suit property formed part of the adjudication culminating in the decree, the same cannot be indirectly reagitated in the execution proceedings.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Executing Court rightly held that the objections as well as the application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner were only intended to delay the execution of the decree. Therefore, no jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality warranting interference under appellate jurisdiction has been demonstrated.
11. Consequently, the present Appeal along with the pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 20, 2026/nd/jk