SARVINDER SINGH AND ANR vs VIPUL TANDON & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03.09.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 10.09.2025 + EFA(OS) 11/2022 & CM APPL. 33800/2022 SARVINDER SINGH AND ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Prateesh Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal & Mr. Shubham Shankar Gogoi, Advocates. versus VIPUL TANDON & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for R-2 Ms. Pallavi Parmar, Advocate for R-3 & 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellants [Decree Holders before the learned Single Judge] assail the correctness of order passed on 14.07.2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’], wherein the learned Single Judge while adjudicating an Execution Petition instituted pursuant to a decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] proceeded to frame issues in three separate objections and directed restoration of possession/status quo ante, to be maintained until the final adjudication of the said objections. It is significant to note that the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Objectors’] Signature Not Verified EFA(OS) 11/2022 Page 1 of 10 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:37:32 were not impleaded as party(ies) to the suit, notwithstanding the fact that they had purchased the suit property by way of Registered Sale Deeds before the filing of the suit in the year 2015, which was decreed in the year 2016. The operative part of the Impugned Order reads as under: “43. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the issues raised in the present applications can only be decided after evidence is led on behalf of the