Trifed (Tribal Co-Operative Marketing Development Federation Of India Limited) vs Shri A Singsit

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010663992025
+ EX.F.A. 45/2025, CM APPL. 57189/2025 (Ex. From filing
certified copies of annexures), CM APPL. 57190/2025 (Delay
of 71 days in filing the appeal) & CM APPL. 14256/2026 (For
amendment in the appeal)

TRIFED (TRIBAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING
`DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED)
.....Appellant
Through: Mr Piyush Gupta and Mr.
Sudhanshu Sharma, Advs.
versus

SHRI A SINGSIT .....Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Appeal, filed under Section 96 read with Order
1
XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeks to assails
2
the Order dated 07.03.2025 , passed by the learned District Judge-
02 & Waqf Tribunal, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,
3
New Delhi , in the Execution Petition, being EX. 38/2015
4
(renumbered as EX. 5310/2016) .
2. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Executing Court

1
CPC
2
Impugned Order
3
Executing Court
4
Execution Petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 1 of 8

dismissed the Application seeking Arrest/Detention of the
5
Respondent/Judgment Debtor , preferred by the Appellant/Decree
Holder, under Order XXI Rule 11-A read with Section 151 of the
CPC. Further, vide the Impugned Order, the learned Executing Court
also proceeded to dismiss the Execution Petition itself.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The Respondent, a former employee of the Appellant, was
allotted Premises No. 493, Hawa Singh Block, Asian Games
6
Village, New Delhi , during the course of his employment.
4. Upon his removal from service on 01.09.1996, the Respondent
failed to vacate the aforesaid premises. Consequently, proceedings
were initiated against him under the Public Premises (Eviction of
7
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 . The learned Estate Officer
8
vide Order dated 23.03.1999 , held Respondent liable to pay
damages amounting to Rs. 4,37,505/- towards use and occupation of
the premises, together with future interest at the rate of 18% per
annum.
5. The Respondent assailed the Decree by way of an Appeal,
being PPA No. 75/2000, which came to be dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide Judgment dated 31.10.2001.
9
The Respondent thereafter instituted W.P.(C) No. 742/2002 before
this Court.
6. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of vide Order dated
09.02.2011, whereby this Court held the Respondent liable to pay
damages in terms of the Orders passed by the learned Estate Officer

5
Arrest Application
6
Subject Premises
7
PP Act
8
Decree
9
Writ Petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 2 of 8

and the learned District Judge. Subsequently, vide Order dated
26.03.2015, this Court observed that the Appellant was at liberty to
avail of such remedies as may be available to it in law.
7. In pursuance of the aforesaid liberty, the Appellant instituted
the Execution Petition on 02.07.2015, seeking recovery of the decretal
amount along with interest. During the pendency of the Execution
Petition, vide Order dated 15.01.2021, the Respondent was directed to
furnish an Affidavit disclosing his assets. The Respondent furnished
his Affidavit of Assets and Income on 11.11.2022 and, thereafter, filed
further Affidavits pursuant to directions issued by the learned
Executing Court.
8. On 14.02.2025, the Appellant preferred the Arrest Application
seeking arrest and detention of the Respondent. The Respondent filed
his Reply thereto. The Arrest Application was heard on 28.02.2025,
and the matter was thereafter listed for further proceedings on
07.03.2025, on which date the Impugned Order came to be passed,
whereby the Arrest Application, along with the Execution Petition was
dismissed by the learned Executing Court.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present
Appeal seeking, inter alia , setting aside of the Impugned Order.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits
that the Impugned Order suffers from patent infirmity. It is contended
that, on the date the Impugned Order came to be passed, the matter
was listed only for consideration of the Arrest Application, however,
the learned Executing Court, proceeded to dismiss the Execution
Petition itself, notwithstanding that the same had not been listed for
“final disposal” .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 3 of 8

11. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the
Respondent has deliberately protracted the execution proceedings for
nearly a decade. It is contended that the Respondent initially sought to
rely upon the pendency of the Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No.
136/1997, wherein the Respondent had assailed his removal from
service, which ultimately came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on
23.12.2024. Thereafter, the Respondent continued to delay the
execution proceedings by failing to furnish his Affidavit of Assets
within the stipulated time, compelling the learned Executing Court to
even impose costs upon him vide Order dated 09.09.2022.
12. Learned counsel for the Appellant, therefore, submits that the
delay in the execution proceedings, if any, was attributable entirely to
the Respondent and not to the Appellant. It is contended that the
Appellant, being the Decree Holder, cannot be made to suffer the
dismissal of its Execution Petition on account of delay caused by the
Judgment Debtor himself, and that the Impugned Order, which in
effect rewards such conduct, deserves to be set aside.
13. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the
Appellant.
ANALYSIS:
14. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant and, with his able assistance, perused the material available
on record, including the Impugned Order and the Order-sheets of the
learned Executing Court.
15. The grievance of the Appellant is twofold. First , that the
learned Executing Court dismissed the Execution Petition on a date
when the matter was listed only for consideration of the Arrest
Application. Second , that the Respondent deliberately protracted the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 4 of 8

execution proceedings, and that the dismissal of the Execution Petition
has, in effect, rewarded such conduct.
16. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court
deems it apposite to reproduce the relevant portions of the
Impugned Order reflecting the reasoning adopted by the learned
Executing Court in disposing of the Execution Petition. The
relevant portions thereof read as under:
“It is also pertinent to mention here that sufficient
indulgence has been given to the DH to place on record any assets
or property which can be attached/sold in execution. Even on many
occasions, the JD was directed to file specific affidavit qua assets
and multiple properties, which were alleged by the DH to be the
property of the JD. All affidavits have been filed by the JD.
However, after multiple enquiries, nothing is found capable for
executing the present petition.
In such a scenario, the case cannot be kept pending for
roving enquiries of the counsel for the DH and sufficient
opportunities have been granted to the DH to place some cogent
material on record. However, he has failed to do so. Matter is
pending for 10 years and multiple opportunities provided to DH to
enable the execution of decree. However, DH has no information
qua any assets of JD & he cannot be arrested for execution as
application has been dismissed. Keeping this aspect in mind, I am
of the considered opinion that there is nothing left in the matter.
Execution petition is dismissed for non prosecution.”

17. A perusal of the Order-sheets of the learned Executing Court
shows that the Execution Petition remained pending for nearly a
decade. Throughout this period, the Appellant was given repeated
opportunities to place on record cogent material before the learned
Executing Court showing that the Respondent had assets or financial
resources to satisfy the decretal liability.Significantly, by Order dated
20.12.2024, the learned Executing Court expressly granted the
Appellant a last opportunity in this regard.
18. The Arrest Application, preferred thereafter on 14.02.2025,
substantially reiterated the grounds and averments that had already
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 5 of 8

been urged before the learned Executing Court and considered in the
course of the execution proceedings. No fresh material was placed on
record along with it that could have warranted a different
consideration of the matter.
19. The Arrest Application was thereafter heard on 28.02.2025, and
the matter was then listed for further proceedings on 07.03.2025. The
Execution Petition had been pending for a prolonged period, the
Appellant had been given repeated opportunities, and a last
opportunity had specifically been extended by Order dated
20.12.2024.
20. In light of the foregoing sequence of proceedings before the
learned Executing Court, this Court is of the considered view that the
Appellant cannot legitimately contend that the dismissal of the
Execution Petition on 07.03.2025 came as a surprise, or that it was
deprived of a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim for
execution. The mere fact that the matter was listed for “further
proceedings” in the Arrest Application does not, in the peculiar
circumstances of the present case, render the consequential disposal of
the Execution Petition unsustainable.
21. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the Order-sheets
of the learned Executing Court do not bear out the allegation that the
Respondent alone was responsible for the prolonged pendency of the
execution proceedings. On 01.11.2019, it was the Appellant itself
which prayed that the Execution Petition be kept pending until
W.P.(C) No. 136/1997, then restored, was decided. As regards the
Affidavit of Assets, the learned Executing Court took note of the
Respondent's delay and imposed costs upon him by Order dated
09.09.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent filed his Affidavit of Assets
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 6 of 8

and Income on 11.11.2022, followed by further Affidavits pursuant to
the directions of the learned Executing Court.
22. This Curt is of the considered view that in any event, delay on
the part of a Judgment Debtor, even where established, does not
relieve the Decree Holder of the burden of showing that the Judgment
Debtor has the means to satisfy the Decree. Nor does it oblige the
learned Executing Court to keep the execution pending indefinitely.
The Respondent’s conduct in the proceedings, however it may be
characterised, cannot take the place of the material which the
Appellant was required, and failed, to place before the learned
Executing Court. If at all, the continued pendency of the execution
proceedings for such a long period of time permitted of a greater
opportunity to the Appellant to place on record the necessary and
relevant material.
23. Under the proviso to Section 51 of the CPC, the Decree Holder
must establish, by cogent material, that the Judgment Debtor has, or
has had since the date of the Decree, the means to pay the decretal
amount or a substantial part of it, and has nevertheless refused or
neglected to pay. The burden of placing such material before the
Executing Court rests upon the Decree Holder.
24. Measured against this standard, the Appellant has failed to
discharge that burden. This Court takes note of the fact that even this
Court vide Order dated 10.09.2025, in the present matter, granted the
Appellant an opportunity to place on record any additional documents,
which could have been filed before the learned Executing Court,
which show that the Respondent possessed sufficient income or bank
balance. However, till date, no such documents have been placed on
record. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 7 of 8

Appellant has been unable to draw the attention of this Court to any
material establishing that the Respondent had sufficient means to
satisfy the decretal liability and, despite having such means, wilfully
refused or neglected to make payment.
25. Furthermore, the record reveals that learned Executing Court
gave the Appellant repeated opportunities to identify the assets of the
Respondent, and also directed the Respondent to file Affidavits
disclosing his assets and income, which he did. Despite this exercise,
and the passage of nearly a decade, the Appellant could not identify
any property or asset of the Respondent capable of being proceeded
against in execution. The learned Executing Court, therefore, cannot
be faulted for declining to keep the Execution Petition pending
indefinitely in anticipation of material that the Appellant had been
unable to produce.
26. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the learned
Executing Court duly considered the material placed before it and
reached a conclusion that does not warrant interference. The grounds
urged by the Appellant, whether considered individually or
cumulatively, do not disclose any infirmity in the Impugned Order.
DECISION:
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the present Appeal. The present Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
28. The present Appeal, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in aforementioned terms.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 03, 2026/DJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:44:32
EX.F.A. 45/2025 Page 8 of 8