Apnaghar Builders PVT. LTD vs. Intense Fitness And Spa PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court held that the execution of the decree for possession was satisfied as the Decree Holder had taken possession of the suit property on July 21, 2022. The Court accepted the submission of the Decree Holder that the decree stood satisfied. The Court also implicitly acknowledged that the Decree Holder could pursue separate recovery proceedings for other outstanding dues, such as electricity and water bills, and GST, as these were not part of the decree for possession that had been executed. The reasoning was based on the factual assertion by the Decree Holder that possession had been obtained, thereby fulfilling the terms of the decree being executed. The operative direction was to dispose of the execution petition as satisfied.

Facts

The Decree Holder, Apnaghar Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for execution of a decree dated April 19, 2022, seeking possession of a suit property. The Decree Holder informed the Court that possession of the property was received on July 21, 2022, and therefore, the decree stood satisfied. The Decree Holder also indicated that there were outstanding dues towards electricity and water bills, as well as Goods and Services Tax (GST), for which separate recovery steps would be taken. The Court noted that the execution was satisfied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the execution of the decree for possession is satisfied upon the Decree Holder taking possession of the suit property, as per Order 21 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether the Decree Holder can pursue separate recovery proceedings for outstanding dues such as electricity, water bills, and GST, notwithstanding the satisfaction of the execution decree for possession? Contentions of the Decree Holder: The Decree Holder argued that since possession of the suit property had been obtained, the decree for possession was satisfied. They further contended that outstanding dues for electricity, water bills, and GST were separate liabilities and could be recovered through appropriate legal channels, independent of the execution proceedings for possession. The Decree Holder did not rely on any specific authorities or precedents for these arguments, but rather on the factual submission of possession being taken.