$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 209/2026 & CM APPL. 47273/2026 (stay) JAGDISH CHANDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Iqbal Shamsi, Adv. versus ASHOK RAJARAM DESHPANDE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. (thru VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 24.07.2026 CM APPL.47274/2026 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 209/2026 1. This petition has been filed assailing order dated 15th April 2026, passed by the Executing Court, in Execution Petition No. 1146/2025, whereby objections raised by petitioner/Judgment Debtor under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], were dismissed. 2. The decree was passed in a suit for possession, which was filed by the respondent/Decree Holder. Judgment in said suit was pronounced on 15th May 2025, wherein petitioner/Judgment Debtor was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property, being 5A/173, First Floor, WEA, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, to 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 28/07/2026 at 11:20:47 respondent/Decree Holder within 2 months. It was also directed that a part decree sheet would be prepared accordingly. 3. Execution Petition No.1146/2025 was filed by the respondent/Decree Holder, and subsequently, an application under Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC was filed by petitioner/Judgment Debtor, on the basis that a suit for specific performance, being CS DJ No. 16/2020, had been instituted by petitioner/Judgment Debtor, 2 years prior to the suit for possession, and was pending consideration. Therefore, the Court ought to exercise its discretion by granting a stay on the execution of the decree. 4. Mr. Iqbal Shamsi, counsel for petitioner/Judgment Debtor, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Shaukat Hussain v. Bhuneshwari Devi, (1972) 2 SCC 731, wherein the issue regarding Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC has been taken into account. However, the aforesaid judgment was duly distinguished by the Executing Court, which relied upon observations made by the Orissa High Court, in Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty And Anr, AIR 1969 ORI 233, wherein the Court has held as under: “6. The fundamental consideration is that the decree has been obtained by a party and he should not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good reasons. Until that decree is set aside, it stands good and it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that another suit to set aside the decree might succeed. Such suits are also of a very precarious nature. The allegations therein ordinarily would be that the previous decree was obtained by fraud or collusion or that the decree was not binding on the present plaintiff as the transaction entered into by the judgment-debtor was tainted with immorality. These are all suits of uncertain and speculative character. Most of these cases are likely to fail, the onus being very heavy on the plaintiff to establish fraud and similar charges. That being the position, a person should not be deprived of the 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 28/07/2026 at 11:20:47 fruits of his decree merely because suits of frivolous character are instituted and litigants are out after further series of litigations. The decree must be allowed to be executed. and unless an extra-ordinary case is made out. no stay should be granted. Even if stay is granted. it must be on suitable terms so that the earlier decree is not stifled.” (emphasis added) 5. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, counsel appears on behalf of respondent/Decree Holder on advance notice, and raises an objection to the present petition being allowed. He further points out that in judgment dated 15th May 2025, it has been stated that petitioner/Judgment Debtor has no right to remain in possession of the suit property, till they acquire title for the same in pursuance of a decree for specific performance. Accordingly, counsel for respondent/Decree Holder undertakes that the possession being granted pursuant to the order in execution proceedings, would be conditional upon the outcome of the suit for specific performance instituted by petitioner/Judgment Debtor. 6. Considering that the conditionality has been crystallized vide judgment dated 15th May 2025, the parties shall be bound by the same, and outcome of the suit for specific performance shall further decide rights of the parties with respect to the title and possession of the suit property. 7. Considering that the execution proceedings cannot be kept on hold, and that the Court is required to exercise its discretion under Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 8. Needless to say, till the suit for specific performance is finally decreed, respondent/Decree Holder shall not create any third-party rights with respect to the suit property, so as not to prejudice the rights of the petitioner/Judgement Debtor. 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 28/07/2026 at 11:20:47 9. Petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending application, if any, are rendered infructuous. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 24, 2026/sm/ya 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 28/07/2026 at 11:20:47