The Delhi High Court has refused to intervene in a property dispute where a woman, Leelawati, attempted to block eviction proceedings by claiming fraud in earlier transactions. Justice Manoj Jain, hearing the matter on August 29, 2025, found that her plea was essentially filed at the behest of her husband, the original judgment debtor, and thus unsustainable under the law.
Background
The dispute dates back to 2022 when Rajiv Kumar, who had purchased a property in Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi, filed a suit against Munshi Lal, the previous owner. Despite being served, Munshi Lal never defended the case, leading to a decree in Kumar’s favour for possession of the property. Munshi Lal’s appeals were dismissed, with his second appeal still pending.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Stays Proceedings Against Actor Rajkummar Rao in Lord Shiva Depiction FIR Case
In the meantime, Munshi Lal's wife, Leelawati, moved an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), alleging that the decree had been obtained fraudulently. She accused the decree-holder of running a land-grabbing racket with one Krishan Kumar, from whom Rajiv Kumar had purchased the property.
Court's Observations
Justice Jain carefully examined whether Leelawati could claim independent rights under Order XXI Rule 99, which allows a third party (not the judgment debtor) to complain of dispossession during execution of a decree. The Court noted that there was no marital discord between Leelawati and Munshi Lal and that she herself admitted filing the objection jointly with her husband.
Read also:- Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in 2007 Accident Case, Orders Over ₹48 Lakh to Victim
"The objection application is, for all purposes, at the behest of her husband only," the judge observed, adding that what the judgment debtor could not do directly, he should not be allowed to achieve indirectly through his wife.
The Court also highlighted that Leelawati had already executed documents in favour of Krishan Kumar back in 2016, long before the present litigation. Instead of challenging those documents at the time, she waited nearly nine years to contest them through a separate suit, which is still pending before a civil court.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Zydus Wellness Trademark Suit for Skipping Mandatory Mediation
The Decision
Concluding the matter, Justice Jain dismissed Leelawati’s petition, affirming the order of the Executing Court that had earlier rejected her objections as premature. He clarified, however, that his observations were limited to the execution stage and would not prejudice her ongoing civil suit challenging the 2016 transaction.
With that, the High Court shut the door on Leelawati's attempt to delay eviction through execution proceedings, underscoring the principle that courts will not permit indirect challenges when direct remedies exist.
Case Title: Leelawati v. Rajiv Kumar
Case No.: CM(M) 1274/2025 & CM APPL. 42605-42606/2025
