Amarjeet Singh @ Pummy v. M/S Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd.

1. Petitioner has suffered a decree of mandatory injunction dated 13.09.2024.

2. It seems that after obtaining such decree, an Execution Petition was filed by the decree holder which was taken up by the learned Executing Court on 14.10.2024 and, same day, warrants of possession with respect to the property in question have been issued.

3. When asked, learned counsel for petitioner stated that he has already initiated the process of filing appeal. He, however, submits that the warrants of possession should not have been issued without, at least, waiting for the expiry of period of appeal. He, however, states that since he does not intent to delay the filing of the appeal, he would not press the present petition if the CM(M) 3663/2024 2 issuance of any further coercive process is deferred for one week from today.

4. Learned counsel for decree holder/respondent appears on advance notice and informs that the matter was listed today for the purposes of appointment of bailiff and on instructions, he states that no further coercive process shall be taken in the above said execution for a period of one week from today.

5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the observation that as undertaken above, the decree holder shall not take any coercive process in the aforesaid Execution Petition for a period of one week from today. This is to enable the petitioner herein to file appropriate appeal and to seek relief, if any, from such Appellate Court.

JUDGE OCTOBER 21, 2024