CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Nitin Arora And Anr vs Umesh Kumar Trehan

Delhi High Court · Decided on 1 April 2025 · Citation: (2025) 04 DEL CK 0932

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Jain, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3887 Of 2024 & Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 18832 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 330 words

Manoj Jain, J

CM  APPL.  18881/2025  (for  modify  the  order  dated  12.11.2024)  in CM(M) 3799/2024 & CM APPL. 18667/2025 (for vacation of order dated 22.11.2024)  &  CM  APPL.  18831/2025  (for  modify  the  order  dated 22.11.2024) in CM(M) 3887/2024

1.

Since identical issue is involved in both the abovesaid petitions, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The matters have been taken up today on the basis of applications moved by respondents.

3.

Respondent-Umesh Kumar Trehan had filed two separate suits for possession which were decreed in his favour.

4.

Feeling aggrieved, the concerned tenants filed two appeals i.e. MCA DJ No. 22/2024 and MCA DJ No. 23/2024. Such appeals are pending adjudication before the concerned First Appellate Court.

5.

However, simultaneously, the respondent/decree-holder, based on such decree also filed execution petitions i.e. EX. No. 177/2024 and EX. No. 178/2024 and while considering the same, the learned Executing Court has issued warrants of possessions in both the matters.

6.

The grievance of the petitioners/judgment-debtors/tenants herein is limited to the effect that if the warrants of possession are directed to be executed, their appeals would become infructuous, virtually.

7.

Learned counsel for respondent/decree-holder submits that, as per the instructions, he would have no objection if the execution petitions are kept in abeyance, till the disposal of the said two appeals.

8.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of the abovesaid statement made by learned counsel for respondent, the present petitions may be disposed of as his prayer is also to the same effect.

9.

In view of the above, both the present petitions are disposed of with the direction that the execution petitions would remain in abeyance till disposal of the appeals in question. These be proceeded with, in terms of the decision in said appeals.

10.

The next date, fixed in both the aforesaid matters, stands cancelled.

11.

The petitions, along with pending applications, stand disposed of.