Delhi High Court on Specific Performance: Execution of Decree for Alternate Shops Upheld.

The Delhi High Court upheld the Executing Court’s order directing the appellants to hand over possession and execute sale deeds for two alternate shops (F-02 and F-03) in Paradise Mall, New Delhi, in satisfaction of a decree for specific performance. The Court held that the appellants’ own admission regarding the availability of alternate shops and their offer to the decree-holder bound them by estoppel. The Executing Court acted within its jurisdiction and did not exceed the scope of the decree, ensuring its effective execution.

• The respondent had entered into two Agreements to Sell in May 2005 with the appellants for purchase of Shops F-39 and F-40 in Paradise Mall, Raja Garden.

• The appellants failed to execute the sale deeds, leading to two suits for specific performance which were decreed ex parte on 17 October 2012.

• During execution, the appellants claimed that the original shops no longer existed due to a layout change and offered alternate shops F-02 and F-03.

• The respondent alleged that forged site plans were filed and sought enforcement of the decree for equivalent alternate premises.

• The Executing Court directed delivery of possession of F-02 and F-03 and execution of sale deeds upon payment of the balance consideration and area adjustment at ₹4,950 per sq. ft.

• The decree for specific performance attained finality; the Executing Court could not revisit the merits but had to ensure effective compliance.

• The appellants’ Compliance Affidavit dated 28.05.2018, admitting the existence and offer of Shops F-02 and F-03, was binding and recorded in an unchallenged order dated 03.12.2018.

• The plea of forged site plans was an afterthought. The sanctioned DDA site plan supported the respondent’s claim.

• The Executing Court’s approach aligned with the principles laid down in Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang (1973) and Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad (2003), emphasizing substantial compliance and purposive execution.

• Section 47 CPC empowers the executing court to resolve all issues relating to the satisfaction of the decree.

• The appellants were estopped from denying what they had earlier admitted on record.

• The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned order of the Executing Court.

• The appellants were directed to execute sale deeds for Shops F-02 and F-03 and hand over vacant possession to the respondent.

• The respondent shall pay for the excess area at ₹4,950 per sq. ft. as stipulated in Clause 27 of the Agreements.

• All pending applications were disposed of.

• Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Questions to be determined by the executing court.

• Clause 27 of the Agreement to Sell – Adjustment for change in area.

• Principles from Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang (1973) and Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad (2003).

Citation: 2025:DHC:75193

Case: Gold Cause Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Anand Prakash Gupta

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025

Case No.: EX.F.A. 51/2023 & EX.F.A. 52/2023