The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a judgment debtor challenging multiple orders of an execution court, terming the litigation as “absolutely frivolous” and “brought with mala fide.” Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld the issuance of arrest warrants and warrants of possession against the petitioner, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000.
In the case of Vakeel Ahmed v. Kamlesh Gupta (CM(M) 2915/2024), the High Court adjudicated a challenge against orders passed by the execution court on May 17, 2022, April 29, 2024, and May 31, 2024. The Court found no infirmity in the lower court’s decisions, which included directions for police assistance to break open locks and the issuance of arrest warrants due to non-compliance and resistance by the judgment debtor.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vakeel Ahmed (Judgment Debtor), approached the High Court assailing three specific orders of the execution court:
- Order dated 17.05.2022: The execution court dismissed the petitioner’s objections and directed the issuance of warrants of possession for the tenanted property and warrants of attachment of movable properties to recover outstanding mesne profits.
- Order dated 29.04.2024: The court recorded outstanding arrears amounting to Rs. 17,44,363. Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that possession had already been handed over, the court directed police assistance to break open the locks of the premises in view of “aggressive resistance raised on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor.”
- Order dated 31.05.2024: The execution court allowed the application of the respondent (Decree Holder) and directed the issuance of arrest warrants against the petitioner.
Initially, the petitioner also challenged an order dated June 2, 2023, but withdrew that challenge on July 15, 2024.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner advanced a single argument before the High Court. He contended that the petitioner had “already restored possession of the subject property to the present respondent/decree holder in the month of October 2014,” a period when the suit was admittedly pending before the trial court.
In response, the counsel for the respondent, Kamlesh Gupta, supported the impugned orders. The respondent argued that the petitioner was “trying to hoodwink the courts at different levels.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Girish Kathpalia scrutinized the petitioner’s claim regarding the handing over of possession. The Court noted that in response to a specific query, the petitioner’s counsel stated “that he has no evidence to show handing over of the possession.”
The Court further observed that the plea of restoration of possession had not been accepted by either the trial court that passed the decree or the appellate court that confirmed it. Additionally, a second appeal filed by the petitioner was “dismissed for non-prosecution and was not sought to be restored.”
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s submission regarding a pending suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. It was revealed that the petitioner had withdrawn his application for an interim injunction in that suit. The Court noted, “despite one year having passed after that withdrawal, no fresh application has been filed.”
Justice Kathpalia also took note of a parallel proceeding listed on the same day, CM(M) 446/2023, filed by the legal representatives of the petitioner’s brother regarding the same decree. That petition was also withdrawn after being partly addressed.
Drawing a conclusion from these facts, the Court observed:
“The above conspectus leaves me in no doubt that the petitioner/judgment debtor is trying to somehow resist the execution of the decree by protracting the proceedings, so that the respondent/decree holder abandons the litigation in frustration.”
Decision
The High Court held that there was “absolutely no infirmity in any of the orders impugned.” Justice Kathpalia ruled that the petition was “not just completely devoid of merits but is absolutely frivolous and brought with mala fide.”
Consequently, the petition and the accompanying application were dismissed. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be paid to the respondent/decree holder within one week.
