SMT. BHAWNA MALIK vs SH. ANAND KRISHAN DHAWAN

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 1st, September, 2025 + CM(M) 1675/2025 & CM APPL. 54634-54635/2025 SMT. BHAWNA MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh Chandra Sharma, Mr. Munish Kumar Gaur, Mr. Peeyush Kaushik and Mr. Siddharth Kaushik, Advocates versus SH. ANAND KRISHAN DHAWAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satyam Chaturvedi, Mr. C.M. Maini, Mr. Mayank Maini, Mr. Biman Sethi and Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Mr. Anand Krishan Dhawan (respondent herein) had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages/mesne profits against his sister (petitioner herein). 2. Aforesaid suit resulted in decree dated 20.09.2017. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the aforesaid suit was earlier dismissed-in-default and the suit was got restored on her back and thereafter, she was proceeded against ex parte. 4. Fact remains that while taking the aforesaid argument, petitioner herein filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC praying therein that such ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.09.2017 may be set aside. Her such endeavour was not successful as her application was dismissed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1675/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:03.09.2025 17:16:48 concerned learned Trial Court on 22.10.2024. 5. Feeling aggrieved, she has already filed an appeal (RCA DJ 7/2025) which pending adjudication. 6. Fact, however, remains that petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the manner in which the suit was got restored and ex parte judgment was allegedly obtained by the decree-holder, filed objection petition under Section 47 CPC in the execution proceedings also. Such objection petition has been dismissed by the learned Executi