Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Civ suit 679/23
SUDESH Vs. RAHUL KUMAR
04.06.2025
Present:- Ms. Gunika Gaba, Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Yash Kaushik, Ld. Proxy Counsel for all the
defendants except defendant no. 5 alongwith
defendant no. 1 and 2.
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2,
being the legal representatives (LRs ) of late Sh. Fateh Chand,
claim a share in the property bearing no. 47, Aram Park, New
Chandu Park, Krishna Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit
property’). It is submitted by the counsel for plaintiffs that a
settlement agreement was reached among the parties on
30.06.2015, whereby it was agreed that the suit property would be
sold to a third party, and the sale proceeds would be distributed
among the LRs.
2. The counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the LR of late Sh.
Anil Kumar are looking for prospective purchasers and are
attempting to create third party rights in the suit property in
contravention of the said settlement.
3. In response, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argues that the
award passed in continuous Lok Adalat on 30.06.2015 is not
enforceable because not all legal heirs of late Sh. Fateh Chand were
parties to the said award. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs
have already filed an execution petition before the Ld. District
Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi seeking enforcement of
Cont..
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
the said award, which is currently pending adjudication.
4. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. It is
apparent and not in dispute that the plaintiffs do have a share in the
suit property as legal representatives of late Sh. Fateh Chand. It is
also not in dispute that the plaintiffs have already invoked the
remedy of execution proceedings for enforcement of the award
dated 30.06.2015. It is trite that as per the scheme u/o XXI Rule 97
to 101 CPC, the executing court is enjoined to adjudicate the right,
title and interest claimed in the property arising between the
parties to proceedings or between the DH and the person claiming
independent right, title and interest in the immovable property and
make an order in that behalf.
5. In view of the same, a separate suit merely seeking an
injunction to restrain the creation of third party interest in the suit
property is not maintainable. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are
simultaneously pursuing two inconsistent remedies- on the one
hand, they seek an injunction to restrain the creation of third party
rights in the suit property; on the other hand they have already
initiated execution proceedings for enforcement of the award dated
30.06.2015. In the opinion of this court, all available remedies lie
within the scope of execution proceedings and not by way of a
separate suit.1
6. In light of the above observations, the present suit stands
dismissed as not maintainable. Needless to say that any third party
acquiring interest in the suit property during the pendency of the
execution petition or contrary to the settlement agreement dated
Cont..
1 Shakuntala Gupta Vs. Manmohan Gupta 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8872
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
30.06.2015 shall be subject to the principle of lis pendens u/s 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. File be consigned to record
room after due compliance.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/04.06.2025
-- 3 of 3 --