Mr. Manan Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Mr. Ankit Gupta, Mr. Mithil Malhotra, Mr. Abhinav v. ANAND PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment

1. The above appeals have been filed by the appellants/ judgement EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 1 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 debtors1 against the common judgement dated 25.08.20232 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi3 in Ex.P. Nos.98 and 99 of 20174 filed by the respondent/ decree holder5 seeking execution of the common judgement and decree dated

17.10.20126 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CS(OS) Nos.232 and 231 of 20127 respectively. 2. Succinctly put, the facts leading to the above appeals are that the parties entered into two separate Agreements to Sell8 on 16.05.2005 and

17.05.2005 in respect of two separate commercial spaces bearing nos.F-39 and F-40 admeasuring 401.60 sq. ft. covered area and 617.85 sq. ft. super area, and 414.31 sq. ft. covered area and 637.39 sq. ft. super area

respectively9, located on the First Floor of Paradise Mall, Plot No.23, Shivaji Place, District Centre, Main Ring Road, Raja Garden, New Delhi. 3. After part payment of the total consideration as per the Schedule(s) of the two Agreements, the respondent filed two separate suits against the appellant seeking common relief of specific performance of the two Agreements, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an ex parte decree in respect of the original two shops in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. 4. Due to non-compliance of the aforesaid decree, the respondent had to initiate execution proceedings therefor against the appellants before the 1 Hereinafter ‘appellants’ 2 Hereinafter ‘impugned judgement’ 3 Hereinafter ‘learned Executing Court’ 4 Hereinafter ‘execution proceedings’ 5 Hereinafter ‘respondent’ 6 Hereinafter ‘decree’ 7 Hereinafter ‘two suits’ 8 Hereinafter ‘two Agreements’ 9 Hereinafter ‘original two shops’ EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 2 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 learned Executing Court. During the pendency thereof, the appellants, pursuant to being served, duly appeared and filed a Compliance Affidavit dated 28.05.2018 in terms of order dated 18.05.2018. As per the appellants therein, due to change in the original Site Plan of the premises10 wherein the original two shops were situated as in the two Agreements, the original two shops were no longer existing, and new commercial spaces within the same premises bearing nos.F-03 and F-02 admeasuring 1098.09 sq. ft. super area and 1211.70 sq. ft. super area respectively11 were identified by the appellants in the new Site Plan12 submitted along with the said Compliance Affidavit. 5. Thereafter, pursuant to an application of the respondent, the learned Executing Court, vide order dated 05.08.2019, appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises, who filed his Report on

14.10.2019. As per the said Report, during the execution of the commission, a completely different and purportedly newer Site Plan13 was handed over by a representative of the appellants to the Local Commissioner. In fact, on inspection of the premises as per the third Site Plan and with the aid of the appellants’ representative revealed that in place of the original two shops, there existed one shop being F-03, shown on the third Site Plan as F-03A and F-03B. 6. The respondent then filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190814 objecting to the above Report primarily on the ground that the third Site Plan upon which the Report was based 10 Hereinafter ‘original Site Plan’ 11 Hereinafter ‘new two shops’ 12 Hereinafter ‘second Site Plan’ 13 Hereinafter ‘third Site Plan’ 14 Hereinafter ‘the Code’ EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 3 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 was forged and fabricated, and was never served upon the respondent before the execution of the commission, amongst others. 7. After hearing arguments by learned counsels for both parties, the learned Executing Court passed the impugned judgement disposing of the execution proceedings along with the aforesaid application, directing the appellants to handover vacant and physical possession of the new two shops in terms of the second Site Plan to the respondent, as also to accept the balance sale consideration in terms of Clause 27 of the two Agreements, and execute requisite title documents. 8. Thus, the appellants are before this Court in challenge to the impugned judgment, wherein it is the case of the appellants that the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside since the same has been passed without giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard, particularly since the learned Executing Court was seized of the objection application filed by the respondent against the Report of the Local Commissioner, and not of the execution proceedings in entirety. It is the case of the appellants that the learned Executing Court had no jurisdiction to decide the execution proceedings without adjudicating upon the authenticity of the said Report, and that too by traversing beyond the decree in terms of the total area awarded to the respondent. 9. Supporting the said Report, Mr. Manan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Local Commissioner was an extended arm of the Court, and the Report filed by him amounted to evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code, to which the learned Executing Court could not have turned a blind eye, especially, whence it was clear therefrom that in place of the original two shops, there now existed one EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 common space, and no two shops could be identified anymore. 10. In any event, as per Mr. Manan Gupta, learned counsel, the learned Executing Court overstepped its jurisdiction, especially, since the total area allotted to the appellants by virtue of the two Agreements was approximately 1255 sq. ft., however, by virtue of the impugned judgment the respondent has been awarded a total area of approximately 2309 sq. ft. instead. This also amounted to transfer of roughly three shops instead of two shops as originally agreed between the parties and decreed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Not only that, the respondent has been unjustly enriched due to the impugned judgement, since the appellants have been directed to accept the balance sale consideration for the increased total area at the rate of Rs.4,950/- per sq. ft. in terms of the two Agreements executed way back in the year 2005. As per Mr. Manan Gupta, learned counsel, the appellants had to change the Site Plan only due to changes in the building bye laws which were beyond the control of the appellants, and the appellants have been made to suffer huge monetary losses, and the respondent received windfall gains, despite the appellants having committed no wrong(s), which goes against the principles of fair play. 11. Lastly, Mr. Manan Gupta, learned counsel submitted that the averments made by the appellants by way of the Compliance Affidavit dated 18.05.2018 have been misconstrued, and the same only amounted to an alternative offer made by the appellants to the respondent out of generosity, for either one of the new two shops. The learned counsel submitted that it was never the case of the appellants that both the new two shops could be taken by the respondent in place of the original two EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 shops, and it was not Clause 27, but Clause 2 of the two Agreements which was invoked by the appellants. Based on the aforesaid, Mr. Manan Gupta, learned counsel sought setting aside of the impugned judgment. 12. Per contra, it is the case of the respondent before this Court that the impugned judgement is well-reasoned and has been passed after detailed consideration of all the material(s) on record, as well as, after affording both parties ample opportunity to be heard and to raise their objections and adduce their evidence, and generally adhering to the principles of natural justice. 13. On the conduct of the appellants, Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the same has been ripe with concealment and fraud right from the beginning. The appellants first refused to honor the two Agreements even after the respondent fulfilled his obligations thereunder, and then remained ex parte in the two suits wherein the decree was passed. Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel submitted that the appellants were bound by the decree which had attained finality, especially, since the application under Order IX rule 13 of the Code filed by them for setting aside of the same had also been rejected. Despite the same, the appellants willfully disobeyed the directions issued therein, constraining the respondent to initiate execution proceedings. 14. Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel submitted that before the learned Executing Court, the appellants continued to conceal vital facts and only made admissions when caught on the wrong foot. The same is evident from the fact that the second Site Plan was only brought to the knowledge of the respondent well after initiation of the execution proceedings. Not only that, the third Site Plan bearing the signatures of EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 6 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 one Mr. Surinder Singh, an Architect, who had already been specifically objected to by the respondent when his name was suggested for appointment as Local Commissioner, was a forged and fabricated document, and was never served upon the respondent or brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court but directly handed over to the Local Commissioner during the execution of the commission, despite vehement objections by the respondent. 15. In fact, Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel submitted that a complaint with the Council of Architecture was lodged by the respondent against the said architect, Mr. Surinder Singh, for the very same forged and fabricated third Site Plan prepared by him. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary committee found him guilty of professional misconduct and the Council passed an order dated 16.11.2023 suspending him for a period of 12 months. Based thereon, Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel submitted that the Report of the Local Commissioner, filed on the strength of a forged and fabricated document, could have formed no basis for consideration whatsoever. 16. To fortify his submissions, Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the appellants’ Compliance Affidavit dated

28.05.2018, as well as the subsequent order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Executing Court, and urged that the impugned judgement has been passed based on the very admissions made by the appellants. The second Site Plan, which is sanctioned by Delhi Development Authority15 and based whereupon the impugned judgement has been passed, was filed by the appellants themselves along with the aforesaid Compliance 15 Hereinafter ‘DDA’ EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023 Page 7 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:39:36 Affidavit, wherein the appellants have also admitted to monetary adjustments to be made as per the two Agreements. The same, along with the provisions contained in Clause 27 of the two Agreements, have rightly been taken into consideration by the learned Executing Court. 17. Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel lastly sought to rely upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang16, Topanmal Chhotmal v. Kundamal Gangaram & Ors.17 and Pratibha Singh & Anr. v. Shanti Devi Prasad & Anr.18 to submit that for satisfaction of the decree, the learned Executing Court was empowered to, and in fact, had a duty to construe the decree by perusing the documents before the said Executing Court. The present proceedings involved two Agreements executed qua two separate shops inter se the parties. Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Kartick Chandra Pal v. Dibakar Bhattacharjya19, submitted that when a decree is passed for execution of an agreement/ contract between the parties, it is up to the Executing Court to give effect to the real nature of such agreement/ contract in order to give effect thereto, and to do what the parties were bound to have done. Based on the aforesaid, Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel supporting the impugned judgement, sought dismissal of the present appeals. 18. This Court has heard both Mr. Manan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent