Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2026 DHC 2477
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2026 DHC 2477
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    A. ANAND v. ARUNA

    $~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

    1

    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 the impugned order and the petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    9. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

    RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

    MARCH 24, 2026/MR/ABK

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    A. ANAND v. ARUNA
    (Mar 24, 2026)