SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA vs NIRMALA SHARMA

UKHC010150462026

2026:UHC:7686
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL. No. Date
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures

WPMS/2592/2026
Shri Om Prakash Gupta
--Petitioner

Versus
Nirmala Sharma and others
--Respondents

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Gaurav Kandpal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate for the
caveator.

2. Petitioner has challenged judgment and order
dated 15.12.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case
No. 150 of 2024. He has also challenged judgment
and order dated 06.08.2026, passed by learned
District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2025.
3. It transpires that a suit for eviction and
possession was filed by Shanti Prapan Sharma
against Commercial Motors and eight other persons
contending that the land in question was leased out
to the defendants, their tenancy was terminated on
the ground that they have sublet the demised land
and they have defaulted in payment of rent also.
4. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated
16.07.1998, defendants in the suit filed First Appeal
which was dismissed by learned District Judge,
Dehradun vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 and two

UKHC010150462026

2026:UHC:7686
Second Appeals were filed by defendants, which
were dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 06.07.2007.
5. The matter was ultimately taken by defendant

No.-1 to Hon’ble Supreme Court in a SLP, which
was dismissed, vide order dated 11.03.2011. Order
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is extracted
below:
“Special leave petitions are dismissed.
However, time to vacate the premises is extended
upto the end of September, 2011 subject to petitioner
filing an usual undertaking in regard to regular payment
of rent, non induction of any third party and voluntary
surrender.”

6. Mr. Shanti Prapan Sharma (plaintiff) died
during pendency of suit before the Trial Court and
his legal representatives were substituted. Legal
representatives of plaintiff approached Hon’ble
Supreme Court by filing a Contempt Petition,
contending that despite the restraint on non-
induction of third party in the suit premises,
judgment debtors inducted one Mr. Om Prakash
Gupta (petitioner herein), as sub tenant.
7. The contempt petition was, however, permitted
to be withdrawn by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 23.10.2018 with liberty to decree holder
to pursue other remedies in respect of the suit land.
8. The decree holder had earlier filed an

UKHC010150462026

2026:UHC:7686
execution application against the judgment debtor;
he thereafter filed second execution application in
terms of the liberty given by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, against the petitioner who allegedly was
inducted as sub-tenant during pendency of SLP
before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
9. Petitioner filed objection in the execution
application contending that he is in possession of the
shops since 1994, but he was not made party to the
eviction suit, therefore the decree passed in that suit
is not binding upon him. His objection was tried as a
suit under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and it was held
that petitioner has stepped into the shoes of
Defendant Nos. 4, 6, 7 in the suit, therefore, the
decree is binding upon him. Petitioner was not able
to substantiate his claim that the landlord had
inducted him as tenant, as was not able to produce
any rent receipt or any other evidence. Petitioner’s
objection was rejected by Executing Court by
holding that he is not continuing in possession over
the property in question in his independent right and
he was inducted as tenant by the judgment debtor
after passing of decree.
10. Petitioner filed appeal against the order passed

by Executing Court. His appeal was also dismissed
by learned District Judge vide judgment dated

UKHC010150462026

2026:UHC:7686
06.08.2026. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has
approached this Court.
11. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the
matter.
12. The Executing Court has returned a finding of
fact that petitioner is not continuing in possession in
his own right and he was inducted as tenant by the
judgment debtor that too after decision in the suit.
The plea taken by petitioner that he was
continuing in possession over the property in
question since 1994 was disbelieved. The appellate
Court affirmed the finding of fact rendered by
Executing Court.
13. This Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution is not inclined
to interfere with concurrent findings of fact returned
by Executing Court, as affirmed by the Appellate
Court.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.
















(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
24.08.2026
Mahinder