No Stay be granted against the execution of specific perfromance decree as the third party -subsequent purchaser – pending the first suit- under an agreement of sale- on the plea of third party had filed a suit = Execution petition for executing specific performance decree – The executing court has halted and stayed the execution proceedings on the ground that one Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta had claimed to have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the same property in the year 1990 and had instituted Civil Suit – The impugned order stalls and halts execution of the decree for specific performance passed in the year 1998, which decree has attained finality.- Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta rely on an agreement to sale purportedly executed by a power of attorney of the original owner (the third respondent before us), dated 27 th November, 1990. This agreement by the third respondent was in contravention of the injunction order dated 14 th March, 1988 passed in Civil Suit (OS) No. 553 of 1988 filed by the appellant. Admittedly, Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta have not acquired ownership and title in the suit property. – we do not see how execution of the decree for specific performance in favour of the appellant can be injuncted and stayed in view of the subsequent suit filed by Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta, which suit is still pending and has not yet been decided. Mere filing of the civil suit cannot come in the way of the execution of the lawful decree in favour of the appellant which is final. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the orders passed by the Division Bench and the Single Judge in the execution proceedings and allow the present appeal.

CA 3412/2019

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3412 OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32846 of 2016)

Veena Mahajan Appellant(s)

              Versus

V.N. Verma and Others Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant, Veena Mahajan, plaintiff in Civil Suit

(OS) No. 553 of 1988, sought specific performance of an

agreement dated 14 th

February, 1986, which suit was decreed in

the year 1998. The decree has attained finality upon dismissal

of appeals including the special leave petition arising

therefrom in the year 2012.

Thereafter, the appellant filed Execution Petition No.

282 of 2012 for execution of decree for specific performance.

The executing court has halted and stayed the execution

proceedings on the ground that one Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini

Gupta had claimed to have entered into an agreement of sale in

respect of the same property in the year 1990 and had

instituted Civil Suit (OS) No. 779 of 2001 for specific

CA 3412/2019

2

performance of the agreement dated 27 th

November, 1990.

Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. There

is none to represent the respondents. We have considered the

matter.

The impugned order stalls and halts execution of the

decree for specific performance passed in the year 1998, which

decree has attained finality. The appellant had filed the said

suit in 1988 and has been in litigation for the last thirty

years. For the last eighteen years she has been denied fruits

of the decree and judgment in her favour. Meena Rani Gupta and

Nalini Gupta rely on an agreement to sale purportedly executed

by a power of attorney of the original owner (the third

respondent before us), dated 27 th

November, 1990. This agreement

by the third respondent was in contravention of the injunction

order dated 14 th

March, 1988 passed in Civil Suit (OS) No. 553

of 1988 filed by the appellant. Admittedly, Meena Rani Gupta

and Nalini Gupta have not acquired ownership and title in the

suit property.

In these circumstances, we do not see how execution

of the decree for specific performance in favour of the

appellant can be injuncted and stayed in view of the subsequent

suit filed by Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta, which suit is

still pending and has not yet been decided. Mere filing of the

civil suit cannot come in the way of the execution of the

CA 3412/2019

3

lawful decree in favour of the appellant which is final.

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the orders

passed by the Division Bench and the Single Judge in the

execution proceedings and allow the present appeal.

Proceedings in Execution Petition No. 282 of 2012 will now be

commenced and proceeded with expeditiously.

………………CJI.

[Ranjan Gogoi]

………………..J.

[Deepak Gupta]

………………..J.

[Sanjiv Khanna]

New Delhi

April 05 , 2019.

CA 3412/2019

4

ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV

           S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                   RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.32846/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-03-2016

in EFA No. 5/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

SMT. VEENA MAHAJAN Petitioner(s)

                            VERSUS

SH. V.N. VERMA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 05-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shivani Luthra, Adv.

Ms. Anjana Ahluwalia, Adv.

Mr. Karan N., Adv.

              Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s)

              Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR (N/P)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                         O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Chetan Kumar) (Anand Prakash)

 A.R.-cum-P.S.        Court Master

(Signed order is placed on the file)