Recording Of Compromise & Consequent Decree Although Procedurally Delayed, Adhered To Process Under CPC: SC Restores Executing Court’s Order

The Supreme Court restored the order of the Executing Court in a case on the ground that recording of compromise and consequent decree although procedurally delayed, adhered to the process under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The Court was deciding a civil appeal filed by a decree holder against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by which the revision filed under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order of the Executing Court, rejecting the objections under Section 47 of CPC was allowed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “The decree's execution was contingent upon Defendant No. 1 fulfilling conditions such as obtaining the NOC and ensuring Defendant No. 2 vacating the portion of the property in question in his possession. The recording of the compromise and the consequent decree on 09.05.1979, although appearing procedurally delayed, adhered to the process required under CPC.”

Advocate Puneet Jain represented the appellants while AOR Anuj Bhandari represented the respondents.

In this case, the order impugned therein passed by the Executing Court, was set aside and it was held that the decree passed by the Trial Court was inexecutable and a nullity and accordingly, the objections under Section 47 CPC, were allowed. The dispute was related to the property which was originally owned by Ghulam Mohiuddin (Defendant No.1). An agreement to Sell was executed for sale of the suit property by Saeeduddin – Defendant No.2 (brother of Defendant No.1) and also the power of attorney of Defendant No.1, for himself and for the principal Defendant No.1. Pursuant to the said agreement to sell, as the vendor was not executing the sale deed, the appellant (plaintiff) instituted a Civil Suit for specific performance impleading Ghulam Mohiuddin as Defendant no.1 and Saeeduddin as Defendant No.2.

During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise and presented the same before the Trial Court, a copy of which was filed. The Executing Court, vide a judgment and order, dismissed the objections under Section 47 CPC filed by Akhtar Un Nisa. Aggrieved by the same, Akhtar Un Nisa preferred a revision before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned order giving rise to the appeal before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case observed, “… this Court believes that the High Court erred in setting aside the Executing Court's order dated 09.12.1998 and in declaring the Trial Court's decree dated 09.05.1979 void. The High Court's decision appears to be based on several incorrect assumptions and observations.”

The Court further noted that as far as the terms of the compromise are concerned, which have also been questioned by the High Court, the agreement stipulated that Defendant No. 1 was to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving balance payment of Rs. 25,000/-.

“Furthermore, the High Court overlooked the fact that General Tarik, legal heir of Defendant No. 2, had previously objected to the execution proceedings, which was dismissed on 09.12.1988. Subsequent appeals before the High Court, including a Special Leave Petition to this Court, were also dismissed. Therefore, similar objections by Respondent No. 1, Smt. Akhtar Un Nisa, in her capacity as one of the legal heirs of Defendant No. 2 would not be maintainable and would amount to abuse of process of law”, it added.

The Court concluded that the Executing Court had rightly rejected the objections under Section 47 CPC filed by Akhtar Un Nisa.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the order of the Executing Court.

Cause Title- Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRs. v. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 329)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, and AOR Pratibha Jain.

Respondents: AOR Anuj Bhandari, Advocates Gaurav Jain, Rajat Gupta, Disha Bhandari, Anjali Doshi, AOR Preetika Dwivedi, and Advocate Abhisek Mohanty.

Click here to read/download the Judgment