$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1310/2026 & CM APPL. 39078/2026 VATIKA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Ms. Omita Unnankar and Mr. Anurag Mishra, Advs. versus SUNIL VERMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Mr. Tanishq Sirohi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 07.07.2026 1. The present petition is impugning the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘NCDRC’) in Execution Application No. 445/024 in Consumer Complaint No. 2681/2018, titled as “Sunil Verma and Anr. v. Vatika Limited and Ors.”, whereby non-bailable warrants were issued against the Directors/Managing Director of the petitioner company. 2. The dispute arises out of a consumer complaint wherein the respondents sought possession of Villa No. 62 or, in the alternative, other consequential relief. 3. Although the final order dated 18.04.2024 directed delivery of possession, the petitioners contended during execution that the decree, insofar as it directed possession, had become inexecutable and expressed their willingness to comply with the monetary component of the decree by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:35:45 refunding the amount with applicable interest. 4. The petitioners thereafter filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Order XXI CPC, questioning the executability of the decree. Their grievance is that, without adjudicating the said objections and despite their willingness to satisfy the executable portion of the decree, the learned Commission/NCDRC proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the Directors/Managing Director of the petitioner company by the impugned order dated 14.05.2026. 5. After some hearing, learned counsel for the parties submit that they are ad idem that, in the event a direction is issued to the directions to the NCDRC to consider and decide the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC on the next date of hearing i.e., 13.07.2026, the present petition would not survive for further consideration and may accordingly be disposed of. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the NCDRC is directed to consider and and decide the objections filed by the petitioner on the next date of hearing, i.e., 13.07.2026. In the event the matter cannot be taken up on the said date for any reason, the objections shall be decided on such date as may be fixed by the learned Commission at its convenience, preferably without undue delay. 7. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application(s), stands disposed of. 8. It is clarified that the directions passed by the NCDRC, have not been taken into consideration, while passing this order. AJAY DIGPAUL, J JULY 7, 2026/ar/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:35:45