Thursday, 24 April 2014

Whether executing court can enlarge time which is fixed in compromise decree?

Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip, (2014) 2 SCC 465
  Ss. 148, 47 and Or. 23 R. 3 - Applicability of - Court's power thereunder in relation to enlargement of time - Held, can be
exercised only in respect of the period fixed or granted by the court - Thus, where the stipulation in compromise decree
was that the judgment-debtor was required to make payment of money within a specified period was a stipulation by
agreement between the parties concerned and it was not a period fixed by the court, held, S. 148 CPC could not be
invoked in relation to said period - Hence original compromise decree restored and eviction directed in terms thereof, 

 Rent Control and Eviction 
 Arrears of Rent/Default/Tender of Rent/Striking off defence 
 Protection given under S. 13 of 1961 M.P. Act to defaulting tenant in possession, on payment or deposit of rent into
court - Invocation of - Stage of eviction proceedings up to which such protection is available - Not available at execution
stage of eviction decree - Held, in order to invoke the said protection, the payment or deposit of rent has to be made
during the pendency of the suit for eviction or during the appeal (by tenant) against the decree or order of eviction -
Protection under S. 13 of 1961 M.P. Act is not available if the said payment or deposit is made during the execution of
decree for eviction, 
 Eviction decree/Order 
 When may be based on compromise decree - Reiterated, the same is permissible if in addition to the consent of the
tenant, one of the statutorily stipulated grounds for eviction exists in the facts of the case - In the present case, as tenant
was in arrears of rent such statutory ground for eviction was available - Hence original compromise decree restored and
eviction directed in terms thereof, 
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 

 S. 47 and Or. 21 & Or. 23 R. 3 - Jurisdiction and powers of executing court - Scope - Reiterated, executing court must
execute the decree as it is - It cannot go beyond the decree and has no jurisdiction to modify the same - Time fixed
under compromise decree for payment of arrears of rent pursuant to compromise agreement between the parties
concerned - Extension of, by executing court, held, virtually amounted to modification of decree - Thus, said order of
executing court was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity - Hence original compromise decree restored and eviction
directed in terms thereof, (2014) 2 SCC 465-C 
   
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 

 Ss. 148, 47 and Or. 23 R. 3 - Applicability of - Court's power thereunder in relation to enlargement of time - Held, can be
exercised only in respect of the period fixed or granted by the court - Thus, where the stipulation in compromise decree
was that the judgment-debtor was required to make payment of money within a specified period was a stipulation by
agreement between the parties concerned and it was not a period fixed by the court, held, S. 148 CPC could not be
invoked in relation to said period - Hence original compromise decree restored and eviction directed in terms thereof, 


 Ss. 33, 2(2) & (14) and Or. 20 - Void order affecting legal right of the party to suit i.e. appellant landlord herein - Failure
of appellant to challenge such order - Effect of - Void order, reiterated, can create neither legal rights nor obligations -
Hence, appellant could not be denied his aforesaid right on ground that he did not choose to challenge the said void
order - Hence original compromise decree restored and eviction directed in terms thereof, 

 S. 47 and Or. 23 R. 3 - Compromise decree - Enforceability of - Grounds on which may be challenged - Reason(s) why
opposite party entered into compromise, held, are irrelevant - Flouting of compromise decree by judgment-debtor on
ground that his opponent entered into the compromise in view of serious dispute as to maintainability of his claim - Held,
judgment-debtor cannot flout the compromise decree on such a ground - Reasons which compelled the opponent to
enter into the compromise are irrelevant as to its enforceability, if otherwise the compromise is validly entered into, 


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment