VIKRAM TOKAS vs SUMIT WADHWA

Judgment text excerpt

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 05th May, 2026 + CM(M) 1023/2026, CM APPL. 29926/2026, CM APPL. 29927/2026 & CM APPL. 29928/2026 VIKRAM TOKAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Ms. Sonali Singh, Mr. Lokesh Solanki, Ms. Himani Verma, Mr. Sahil Gandhi, Ms. Kavya, Mr. Sumit, Mr. Aditya, Mr. Tarun Mann and Mr. Ankush, Advs. versus SUMIT WADHWA .....Respondent Through: Mr. B. S. Jakhar, Mr. Vikram Singh Jakhar, Mr. Neeraj Jakhar, Ms. Bhawna Jakhar, Ms. Nidhi Jakhar, Mr. Shubham Dabas, Ms. Varnika Sharma, Mr. Dhruv Sachdeva and Mr. Viraj Rathee, Advs. 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 on behalf of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), assailing the orders dated 23rd December, 2025 and 20th February, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in Ex. No. 213/2025, whereby the warrants of attachment in respect of movable Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA CM(M) 1023/2026 Page 1 of 4 DHYANI Signing Date:06.05.2026 11:42:23 properties of the petitioner have been issued. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent/ Decree Holder (DH) appears on advance notice and accepts notice. 4. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 5. Heard. Record perused. 6. Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC is reproduced as under: “Order XXI Rule 22 CPC: Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases----- (1) Where an application for execution is made- (a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree [or where an