Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 1124/2018 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 09, 2019 Crl.M.C. 1124/2018 & Crl.M.A. 4043/2018
SUHAIL KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Jain & Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocates
Date of Order: January 09, 2019 Crl.M.C. 1124/2018 & Crl.M.A. 4043/2018
SUHAIL KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Jain & Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State
Mr. Rajeev Khosla & Ms. H.S.Sodi, Advocates for respondent No.2
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State
Mr. Rajeev Khosla & Ms. H.S.Sodi, Advocates for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Received on transfer.
In execution proceedings pertaining to arrears of interim maintenance and rent, concurrent finding returned by the courts below are that petitioner’s plea of adjustment of `8,50,000/- cannot be gone into, as the executing court cannot go beyond the
Received on transfer.
In execution proceedings pertaining to arrears of interim maintenance and rent, concurrent finding returned by the courts below are that petitioner’s plea of adjustment of `8,50,000/- cannot be gone into, as the executing court cannot go beyond the
JUDGMENT
of 2nd June, 2017.
Petitioner’s counsel relies upon Agreement of 11th October, 2015 to submit that admitted amount of `8,50,000/- paid to respondent ought to be adjusted while executing judgment of 2nd June, 2017.
2019:DHC:137 Crl.M.C. 1124/2018 Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment of 2nd June, 2017 and Agreement of 11th October, 2015, I find that the executing court has rightly concluded that it cannot go beyond the judgment of 2nd June,
Petitioner’s counsel relies upon Agreement of 11th October, 2015 to submit that admitted amount of `8,50,000/- paid to respondent ought to be adjusted while executing judgment of 2nd June, 2017.
2019:DHC:137 Crl.M.C. 1124/2018 Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment of 2nd June, 2017 and Agreement of 11th October, 2015, I find that the executing court has rightly concluded that it cannot go beyond the judgment of 2nd June,
2017. However, it prima facie appears that observations made in the judgment of 2nd June, 2017 are required to be tested in the face of Agreement of 11th October, 2015. In the peculiarity of this case, while dismissing this petition and the application, petitioner is permitted to avail of the remedies against judgment of 2nd June, 2017 within a period of four weeks from today. With aforesaid observations, this petition and application are disposed of.
JUDGE JANUARY 09, 2019 r