Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Delhi High Court Restores Property Possession in Mandatory Show Cause Notice Under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has underscored the imperative of adhering to procedural mandates in property execution cases. The court restored possession of a property to petitioner Sukhminder Singh, setting a precedent on the importance of issuing a show cause notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The court highlighted a crucial legal point: “The impugned order dated 29.11.2023 was not warranted in the facts of this case and has been passed in contravention of the mandate of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC.” This observation emphasizes the necessity of following due process, particularly when execution is sought more than two years after a decree is passed.

The case, CM(M) 2108/2023 & CM APPL. 66160/2023, involved a dispute over the possession of land in Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the execution order dated 29.11.2023 for non-compliance with the procedural requirement of issuing a show cause notice.

The court observed that the non-issuance of a notice to the decree holder from 21.03.2023 until 29.11.2023 was unexplained and in contravention of the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court directed the restoration of possession to the petitioner, Sukhminder Singh, subject to the condition of paying use and occupation charges of Rs. 50,000/- per month from 01.12.2023.

Additionally, the court restored and consolidated the previous execution petition No. 921/2017 with the current execution petition No. 225/2023, allowing the petitioner to argue his objections.

This judgment sets a vital legal precedent in execution cases, particularly in property matters. It reaffirms the court’s commitment to ensuring that due process is followed, safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.

The parties have been directed to explore mediation at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The court has also mandated that the digitally signed copy of this order shall be treated as a certified copy, streamlining the process for ensuring compliance.

Date of decision: 19.12.2023

SUKHMINDER SINGH VS LEKH RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS

 

Latest Legal News