Whether parties can record compromise during execution of decree?

The parties can record compromise at any stage, even pending the execution, if the Decree Holder accepts the statement or compromise, and the Court records accordingly.[2000 (7) SCC 240, Laxmi Narayanan Vs. S.S. Pandian]. Though expressions "the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted" are of wide amplitude as observed in [2006 (12) SCC 138, Padma Ben Banushali & Anr. Vs. Yogendra Rathore & Ors.], the

executing Court needs to consider the pleas so raised, whether it amounts to adjustment or satisfaction of decree, wholly or in part and whether it had the effect of satisfaction of decree under Section 47. The executing Court has power and jurisdiction to decide all questions relating to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. 

Bombay High Court

Shri Jaysingh Maruti Shelke vs Shri Ashok Raghunath Shelke on 1 October, 2010

Bench: Anoop V.Mohta

Citation; 2011(2) MHLJ 30,2011(1)ALLMR112, 2010(6)BomCR39,

2 The Applicant/Petitioner is the original Judgment Debtor and Respondents are heirs of original Decree Holders. The Petitioner filed an application below Exh. 50, in Regular Darkhast No. 93 of 2002 under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), based upon the consent terms dated 27th June, 2001 in Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 1995, regarding satisfaction of the decree and thereby claimed the disposal of execution proceedings pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. The same was opposed by the Decree Holders. The 2 cra477.09.sxw

learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, and after perusal of the material placed on record, including alleged consent decree and the orders passed thereon, by the impugned order rejected the said application, and, therefore, this Revision.

3 Admittedly, the consent terms was not signed by the deceased Ashok Shelke, but signed by the original Plaintiff and other original Defendants except Defendant No.4 Ashok. Deceased Ashok's name was deleted from the proceedings at the instance of present Petitioner- Jaysing. There are discrepancies and variances in the original consent terms which produced on record (Exh. B) and the carbon copy of the consent terms below Exh. "A". The discrepancies so recorded even by the learned Judge, the Petitioner is unable to justify the same. This admitted discrepancies/ variances, even in the maps, therefore, goes to the root of the matter to the submission of the other side that these documents are fake, bogus and manipulated. The doubt is also, therefore, created whether document Exh. "A" produced in the Revision application is the carbon copy of the original consent terms produced at Exh. B or not. The carbon copy, even if any, produced unless proved according to the law, cannot be relied upon, specifically when the authenticity, validity and legality of the same also raised. Therefore, the contents of alleged consent terms, at this stage, cannot be stated to be binding on the Decree Holder. There is no material on record to show that 3 cra477.09.sxw

the Constituted Attorney appeared for deceased Defendant No.4 and/or supported the contents. The consent terms is not binding to the party who is not signatory to the same. The carbon copy of the alleged consent terms with admitted discrepancies and variances itself creates doubt and supports the case that the document so relied upon is false and unreliable and it is concocted and fabricated. There is nothing brought on record to show that there was certified adjustment of the decree out of the court. The compromise, as recorded, as per the application, was strongly opposed on various grounds as recorded above. Therefore, unless validity of such consent terms is decided finally and the parties record such compromise or report to the executing Court certifying the same, the executing Court needs to proceed to adjudicate and to execute the decree, by deciding issues relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree. [1997 (1) SCC 373, Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain] [1999 (6) SCC 30, Badamo Devi Vs. Sagar Sharma]

.

4 The parties can record compromise at any stage, even pending the execution, if the Decree Holder accepts the statement or compromise, and the Court records accordingly.[2000 (7) SCC 240, Laxmi Narayanan Vs. S.S. Pandian]. Though expressions "the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted" are of wide amplitude as observed in [2006 (12) SCC 138, Padma Ben Banushali & Anr. Vs. Yogendra Rathore & Ors.], the 4 cra477.09.sxw

executing Court needs to consider the pleas so raised, whether it amounts to adjustment or satisfaction of decree, wholly or in part and whether it had the effect of satisfaction of decree under Section 47. The executing Court has power and jurisdiction to decide all questions relating to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. However, the aspect of order 21 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of CPC cannot be overlooked.

5 In view of the above, therefore, the impugned order dated 30/03/2009, so passed and as there is no perversity or illegality, I see there is no reason to interfere with the same. The view so taken is based upon the material and documents on record. Considering the scope of the Revision Application as filed under Section 115 of CPC is rejected. 6 The Revision Application is dismissed. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Print Page