Facts
The parties are siblings involved in a partition suit regarding property No. J-1982, C.R. Park, New Delhi.
Source reference: no citationA preliminary decree was passed on 13.12.2023, granting each party a 1/6th share
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6On 03.04.2024, a final decree was passed directing the sale of the property through auction as physical partition was not permissible under municipal by-laws and no inter se consensus was reached
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7The appellants unsuccessfully challenged this via RFA (OS) 28/2024 and a review petition
Source reference: p. 8, para. 20In execution proceedings (EX.P. 58/2025), the Single Judge ordered the possession of the property be taken from the appellants for auction on 29.04.2026
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1In the present appeal, the Court had initially stayed execution on 29.05.2026 based on a consent order where one Mr. Bharat Chetal was to purchase the property for ₹21 crores and deposit ₹10 lakhs as bona fides
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2-3The appellants subsequently moved CM APPL. 39318/2026 to substitute the purchaser with Mr. Gurleen Singh Makkar and seek an extension of time
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to an extension of time or modification of the consent order dated 29.05.2026 when they failed to comply with the personal undertaking of the named purchaser, Mr. Bharat Chetal
Source reference: p. 6, para. 132. Whether the Execute Court's order dated 29.04.2026, directing the takeover of possession for auction, suffered from any legal infirmity
Source reference: p. 11, para. 26Law Applied
The Court applied Section 148 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the enlargement of time and the inherent powers of the Court
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The principle that an undertaking given to the Court is personal to the party making it and cannot be unilaterally substituted by a third party without judicial leave
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11-12Affirmed that once a final decree for partition through sale (due to the impossibility of physical division) attains finality, the Executing Court is duty-bound to enforce it by auctioning the property
Source reference: p. 11, para. 26Reasoning
The Court found that the appellants breached the foundational condition of the interim stay order dated 29.05.2026.
Source reference: no citationSpecifically, the deposit of ₹10 lakhs was required to be made by Mr. Bharat Chetal to show his bona fides, but was instead made by a third party, Mr. Gurleen Singh Makkar, without the Court's permission
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 10-11The Court characterized the appellants’ conduct—shifting from a "builder proposal" to "prospective buyer A" and then "prospective buyer B"—as a calculated attempt to protract proceedings and delay the execution of a final decree that had already attained finality
Source reference: p. 9-10, para. 22-23Since the preliminary and final decrees were no longer under challenge and the property was legally incapable of physical partition, the Court reasoned that the Single Judge’s order to take possession for auction was the only viable method to satisfy the decree
Source reference: p. 11, para. 26Holding
The Court dismissed the application for modification (CM APPL. 39318/2026), holding that a party in breach of an interim protection's conditions cannot seek further equitable indulgence
It directed the Registry to refund the unauthorized deposits made by Mr. Gurleen Singh Makkar
Source reference: p. 7, para. 16The Court dismissed the main appeal (EFA(OS) 5/2026), vacated the interim stay, and affirmed the Single Judge's order dated 29.04.2026, holding that it correctly gave effect to the final decree for property auction
Source reference: p. 11, para. 27Original Court PDF
Suchitra Ray & Anr.vsSumitra Sarkar & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in