A. ANAND vs ARUNA

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24th March, 2026 + CM(M) 617/2026, CM APPL. 18642/2026, CM APPL. 18643/2026 & CM APPL. 18644/2026 A. ANAND .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus ARUNA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina Rajput, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/JD, assailing the impugned order dated 19th March, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in Execution (Civil) No. 1765/2025, whereby the warrant of possession of the suit property has been issued. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent/DH appears on advance notice and accepts notice. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. Vide order dated 15th May, 2025, the application of the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed against the petitioner and decree for possession of the suit property has been Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI CM(M) 617/2026 Page 1 of 2 CHAUHAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:40:06 passed. In the execution petition of that decree, the warrant of possession of the suit property has now been issued. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no prior notice was given before the issuance of the warrant of possession and that the decree was obtained by way of fraud. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner had not appeared despite service of notice. Moreover, the execution petition has been filed within 02 (two) years from the date of the decree, and therefore, no prior notice was also required. 8. Accordingly, this Court doesn’t find any infirmity in