Delhi High Court
The Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. vs Delhi Intercontinental (Hotels) (P) ... on 17 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: 51(1993)DLT676, 1993(27)DRJ62, 1993RLR410
JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag. J.
(1) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor against the judgment dated 2/7/1992 passed by Shri Mohinder pal, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner-Judgment Debtor against the execution of the decree and issued warrants of attachment.
(2) The short facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent-Decree Holder (plaintiff) filed a suit for mesne profits and ejectment against the petitioner-Judgment Debtor. The matter was compromised vide Ext.C-1 dated 14/3/1990, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "DISCUSSED in details the cases filed by landlord in the New Delhi court and finally decided the following terms to withdraw the case bar/suit. 1.The rent to the showroom is to be increased from 21/11/1984, as mutually agreed is from Rs.4560.00 to 6750.00 up to 20/11/1990. 2.The landlord Dr. Chandra Prakash Pahwa and management of Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. shall negotiate and settle the rent on expiry of this agreement. 3.The arrears of the rent due to the landlord will be paid within one month. Both the parties shall advice their advocate to withdraw the case at the earliest."
This has been signed by the Chairman of the petitioner-Judgment Debtor and the Director of the Respondent-Decree Holder. By the terms of this compromise, Ext. C-1, entered into between the parties, the landlord decided to withdraw the case/suit. Statements of counsel for both the parties were also recorded by the trial court. Mr, K.R. Chawla, counsel for the petitioner-Judgment Debtor made the following statement: "THE parties have compromised the suit. The written compromise is Ext. C-1 which is signed for the plaintiff by Shri Chandra Prakash Pahwa as Director of the plaintiff Company and Shri K shivaraja Pillai as Chairman of the defendant Co. The defendant agree to pay to the plaintiff the balance of rent at the rate of Rs.6750.00 per month with effect from 21/11/1984 up to date within a month and also to pay in future till 20/11/90 rent at the same rate at Rs.6750.00 per month for the property in question. Fresh rent will be settled by negotiation between the parties to be enforceable with effect from 21/11/90.The plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the suit with this undertaking."
Mr. R.K. Mehta, counsel for the respondent-Decree Holder made the following statement: "THE statement of counsel for the defendant is the written compromise between the parties is Ex.C1. In view of the undertaking given by the defendant, I withdraw the suit."
On the basis of this compromise Ext. C-1 entered into between the parties and the statement of counsel for the parties, the Court passed the following order on 19/3/1990:- "IN view of the compromise Ext.C-1 between the parties the plaintiff has withdrawn this suit considering the undertaking given by the defendant. Hence the suit is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. File be consigned to R.R."
(3) After this order was passed it appears the Plaintiff-Decree Holder filed an execution petition before the executing court which was dismissed on the ground that there is no decree and it is not executable against which C.R.81/91 was filed. In this revision petition, on an application filed by the respondent, Duggal, J. passed an order that the Decree Holder can move an appropriate application before the trial court which passed the compromise order and that application would be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly such an application was made and ultimately decree was ordered to be drawn by the trial court on 30/5/1991 .In view of the fact that the decree was since prepared, that revision petition was disposed of on 19/2/1992. However, on a clarification sought for by the Judgment Debtor-petitioner, it was clarified on 19/2/1992 by this Court that the trial court would decide whether the decree was executable in the eviction petition and the judgment Debtor would be at liberty to raise all possible objections about the non-executability of the decree before the trial court and the trial court would decide the same in accordance with the law. Consequently, the objections filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor have been considered vide the impugned judgment by the trial court and the same have been dismissed and warrants of attachment have been ordered to issue against the Judgment Debtor.
(4) Mr. Oberoi, learned counsel for the petitioner-Judgment Debtor has vehemently assailed the judgment of the trial court. According to him, the respondent-Decree Holder has withdrawn the suit and, therefore, there is no decree in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same is not executable. At this stage, it may be noticed that the decree in fact has been drawn by the trial court on 30/5/1991, as stated above, which has become final as the same has not been challenged in the higher court. Once the decree is drawn and which has become final, I see no reason why it is not executable.
(5) However, I have also examined the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. With respect even otherwise I am unable to agree with his contention as narrated earlier. It is not a case where the suit has been withdrawn simplicitor but it is a case where the suit has been withdrawn on the undertaking given by a representative of the petitioner Judgment Debtor (Ext. C-1) and statements of counsel for the parties.
(6) For determining whether or not an order of the Court is a Decree, the Court ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the passing of an order. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in the order and whether such an order is a decree, the court often has to ascertain the circumstances under which these words came to be used.
(7) Having regard to the compromise Ext. C-1 and statements of counsel for the parties it is obvious that the respondent-Decree Holder has withdrawn the suit in view of the compromise Ext.C-1 and statements of counsel for the parties. Order of the court for withdrawal of the suit cannot he read de hors the statement of counsel for the parties and the compromise Ext.C-1. Therefore the compromise undertaking Ext.C-1 form part of the judgment and decree. If the compromise Ext. C-1 and the statement of counsel for the parties are taken into consideration, I have no doubt in mind that rights between the parties have been adjudicated and such an adjudication conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to matters in controversy in the suit and it comes within the definition of "Decree" under Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree in these circumstances becomes executable.
(8) In the light of what is discussed above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.
(9) The undertaking given by counsel for the respondent on 24/7/1992 that he would not execute the impugned order also stands vacated.