Full Text
Translation output
$26 to 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 1247/2016
KULDEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
CONT.CAS(C) 1247/2016
KULDEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
MOHD FARDEEN Respondent
Through
Through
CONT.CAS(C) 1248/2016
SUDEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
MINOR
KAILASH Respondent
Through
SUDEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
MINOR
KAILASH Respondent
Through
CONT.CAS(C) 1249/2016
SUDEEP KUMAR
Through
SUDEEP KUMAR
Through
VERSUS
MOHD KAMIL
Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
Respondent
Through
Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
23.11.2016 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated
12th September, 2014 passed in a batch of R.C.Revision petitions whereby petitions were disposed of
2016:DHC:8855 p.' with consent that respondents-tenants shall vacate the tenanted premises on or before 3l August, 2016.
Learned counsel for petitioners states that despites the aforesaid consent, the respondents-tenants have not vacated the premises till date.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have an alternative effective
I remedy by way of execution proceedings.
Consequently, the present contempt petitions are disposed of
With liberty to the petitioners to revive the execution proceedings already filed by them.
This Court directs the Executing Court to decide the execution applications filed by the petitioners at the earliest. llj
MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 23, 2016 KA 2016:DHC:8855
23.11.2016 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated
12th September, 2014 passed in a batch of R.C.Revision petitions whereby petitions were disposed of
2016:DHC:8855 p.' with consent that respondents-tenants shall vacate the tenanted premises on or before 3l August, 2016.
Learned counsel for petitioners states that despites the aforesaid consent, the respondents-tenants have not vacated the premises till date.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have an alternative effective
I remedy by way of execution proceedings.
Consequently, the present contempt petitions are disposed of
With liberty to the petitioners to revive the execution proceedings already filed by them.
This Court directs the Executing Court to decide the execution applications filed by the petitioners at the earliest. llj
MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 23, 2016 KA 2016:DHC:8855
JUDGMENT