Delhi High Court
C.R.P./253/2026 of MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs M/S GOLDEN BUILDCOM PVT LTD on 2 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010411592026 + C.R.P. 253/2026&CM APPL. 59032/2026CM APPL. 59033/2026 MUKHTIAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Tyagi, Advocate. versus M/S GOLDEN BUILDCOM PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Vashist, Sr. Adv with Mr. Deepak
$~43
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010411592026
+
C.R.P. 253/2026&CM APPL. 59032/2026CM APPL. 59033/2026
MUKHTIAR SINGH
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Naveen Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
M/S GOLDEN BUILDCOM PVT LTD
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Manish Vashist, Sr. Adv with
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Mr. Kunal
Mittal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
02.09.2026
1. This petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 03rd August 2026 passed by the District Judge, South West Dwarka Courts. The said order was passed for execution of decree of specific performance in favour of respondent/Decree Holder.
2. Mr. Naveen Tyagi, counsel for petitioner/Judgment Debtor, contends that the Executing Court misdirected itself by allowing the execution in favour of the assignee of respondent/Decree Holder.
3. The suit had been filed by respondent/Decree Holder (plaintiff) which was decreed vide order dated 21st October 2024, on the basis of which, the execution petition had been filed.
4. An application under Order XXI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (‘CPC’) had been filed by the assignee of rights under the decree, to which the petitioner/Judgment Debtor had filed a reply.
5. When the matter came up on 03rd August 2026, the assignee did not press the application filed under Order XXI Rule 16 of CPC and stated that the sale deed may be executed in the name of respondent/Decree Holder.
6. This aspect has been adequately dealt with by the Executing Court, noting that the objections were filed only to the assignment deed and no objections were filed to the draft sale deed, which had been served upon petitioner/Judgment Debtor.
7. Counsel for petitioner/Judgment Debtor raised an objection to this approach having been adopted by the Executing Court.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the issue needs no further consideration.
9. Respondent/Decree Holder is entitled to assign its rights under Order XXI Rule 16 of CPC by virtue of a written assignment deed. Moreover, it has been informed that the petitioner/Decree Holder has itself deposited the money towards the execution of sale deed. The draft sale deed had also been provided, to which, admittedly, no objection had been given by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor.
10. The sale deed has since been executed through the Local Commissioner (‘LC’) appointed by the Executing Court and warrants of possession have been issued, returnable for today.
11. All steps are within the confines of law and can pose no challenge in a revision petition.
12. The Court also notes the decision of Supreme Court in Rajeswari & Ors v. Shanmugam & Anr, 2025 INSC 1329, where the Supreme Court has stated as under:
“28. What is assigned under Exhibit B1, in the present case, are the rights and interest arising out of the said decree. There is no dispute that such decrees could be assigned and in fact there could not have been any. Order 21 Rule 16 of the CPC permits the assignee of a decree to execute it in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the applications were made by such decree-holder. There has been no argument before us about any non-compliance with the proviso to Order 21 Rule 16. Order 21 Rule 16 reads as under:- “ORDER XXI
EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS
***
Application for Execution
***
16. Application for execution by transferee of decree.— Where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it; and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such holder: Provided that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution:
Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others.” (emphasis added)
13. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/RK/sp