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)
V.N. Verma and Others Respondent(s)
O R D E R
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
performance of the agreement dated 27 th
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
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
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
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.
April 05 , 2019.
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)
SH. V.N. VERMA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 05-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
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
Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR (N/P)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
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)