Delhi High Court · 2026-02-11
SH RAKESH KUMAR NANDA DECEASED THROUGH HIS WIFE MS LOVELY NANDA vs SH JITENDER SINGH
- Citation / case number
- CM(M)-349/2026 2026:DHC:1163
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SH RAKESH KUMAR NANDA DECEASED THROUGH HIS WIFE MS LOVELY NANDA
- Respondent
- SH JITENDER SINGH
Judgment text excerpt
$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 11th February, 2026 + CM(M) 349/2026 SH RAKESH KUMAR NANDA DECEASED THROUGH HIS WIFE MS LOVELY NANDA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Ms. Shivali, Mr. Abhedya S. Verma and Mr. Abhishek Nagar, Advocates. versus SH JITENDER SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naman Raj Thakur and Mr. Anuj Kr. Ranjan, Advocates (through VC). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 9634/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 349/2026 & CM APPL. 9635/2026 (for stay) 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 02nd February, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in Ex. P. 45651/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/LRs of deceased Judgment Debtor (‘JD’) has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared on advance notice and accepted notice. Signature Not Verified CM(M) 349/2026 Page 1 of 3 Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:11.02.2026 16:45:11 5. The matter has been taken up for hearing today with consent of the learned Counsels. 6. Heard. Record perused. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decretal amount has already been paid by the JD to the respondent/decree-holder (‘DH’) and in pursuant thereof, a deed of redemption has been duly executed between the parties. It is contended that the present execution petition is a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed, as no amount remains due and payable to the DH. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that th