i.23 '< IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.P. 1,2u2007 . SH. JAI GOPAL GOYAL ..... Decree Holder Through Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv. for DH-1 Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. for DH-2. versus SH. BISHAN DAYAL GOYAL .....Judgment Debtor Through Nemo. !.. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH ORDER o/o L5.L2.2OO9 ' Both the parties have submitted the draft of sale deed before the Deputy Registrar (original) for the purpose of execution of sale deed. The learned counsel for the decree holder No.L submits that the decree holder No.2 is insisting before the Deputy Registrar to A incorporate the fact as mentioned in para 1- (c) of the judgment dated 13.8.2004. The same reads as under: "1(c). The plaintiff no.L was occupying the entire first floor with servant quarter and the plaintiff no.2 was occupying the entire ground floor as well as the second floor and terrace with the roof above along with the servant and the garage." The learned counsel for the decree holder No.L submits Signing Date:24.07.2024 17:12:49 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified that there is no need to incorporate the said para as the para L (c) is merely a fact stated in the plaint. He has referred para 3 & 4 of the judgment in support of his submission. He argues that as far as the maintaining the status quo order passed in CS(OS) No.137612009 with regard to title and possession is concerned the said order is being complied with by the parties and will have to be determined as per its own merit. He has also referred few paras of the plaint in CS(OS) No.137612009 wherein it is mentioned that the decree holder No.1 IanO 2 are in the joint possession of the ground floor of the suit property. However, there is no dispute between the parties to the fact that the decree holder No.1 is occupying the entire first floor with the servant quarter and the decree holder No.2 occupies as of date second floor and terrace with the roof above along with the servant quarter and garage. The entire ground floor is in occupation jointly. The learned counsel for the decree holder No.2 submits that it is necessary to refer the fact stated in para 1(c) of the judgment passed on 13.8.2004 in CS(OS) 8711995. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant facts in the matter, I am of the view that the sale deed may be executed in terms of decree already passed. There is no need to incorporate the fact of para 1(c) in the final draft of sale deed by the Deputy Registrar (Original). The said controversy of the suit property is already the subject matter of CS(OS) L37612009 wherein the status quo order with regard to the title and possession has already been passed which shall be determined as per merit of the case. This order is passed for execution of the sale deed without the prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Present execution is accordingly disposed of. t The Deputy Registrar (Original) shall fix any date for the purposes of execution of the sale deed after finalising the draft given by the parties. Y>'-r1,\-cs--o Va*V'{ MANMOHAN SINGH,J \ DECEMBER 15, 2OO9 jk j