Karnataka High Court
Harbajan Singh Chatha vs K Nissar Ahmed on 15 September, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HON'Bi.E MR. JUSTICE IAWAD RAi_-IE3'-'14'.,';:.._'__:'I3 _ " CRP No. 233 OF 2009 BETWEEN: HARBAJAN SINGH CHATHA, ' AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ' S/0 BUTA SINGH cHATH.A',~-.% __ A R/O 271~272, MOTA SINGH_NA_GAR,=. " JAIANDAR, PUNJAB STATE,.. REP. BY HIS P.A.H,C)LDE--7_R, . OMPRAKASH ARYA} I AGED ABOUT 73 Y_E.AfRS,;_ , :,. S/O CHATRAARLR/;O NCJ.,1O,8'«.1',,_DILEBAG NAGAR, PARTNER, HHS .'5,S--HO_K'TRADI'N'G'--CO., NO.108, "NEw1':SABJ,IMAVNI-DI,g I JALANDHAR, PUNJ.AE5]STATE -------- PETITIONER (BY SRI H.,,GAN'ES'H__f3HAT, ADV.) AND : A A " KNISSAR AH_ME_D,AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, ; FATHER'-NAMTE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER g,__PRORRIETOR,I,.IM,IS.NATIONAL POTATO TRADERS, ' Are/1*r~IAvARPET,I<OIAR TOWN, KOLAR. _ ...RESPONDENT ,(BY-«SRI'fS;NASWATHANARAYANA, ADv.,) **>1< THIS CRP IS FILED U/S 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24-07«2009 PASSED IN EX.NO.199/2006 ON "TH'E-'FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM., KOLAR, DISMISSING THE I.A.U/S 47 WW 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE MADE THE FOLLOWING:-- ORDER
This revision under Section 115 of the Code 'fof'»oCivil Procedure is directed against the order dated 24:'-~-«G7§2Q__O'9::on an Interlocutory Application filed under _Sect--i..ovn:.A.l.:47_ Section 151 CPC, whereby the Ext"No:l:.4i99;f2O'Q'8_.:ontnégggsfivliea of the learned Principal Civilsudge «(Srf-Dvn.o)v-&'..CJlV|, "l<oiar','g has been dismissed as not mairit~a_Vibna_ble. 2 «
2. The revision' by the Decree Holder, who is Decree Hoider succeeded girl dl'-sc'ree: No. 172/2001 on the fi|e.l»ol"thVe"!Vseal'rned (Sr. Dvn.), Jalandhar to recover' -- Judgment Debtor a sum of Rs.2o,24,Voo-4/~ VVarld'A._Vha:d" filed Ex.P. No. 194/2003 for the de'c«re.e_..~ That execution petition was closed on the ~basvi,s"o'l'~the.compromise arrived between the parties and tepevrted' tenet court wide a memo dated 07-06-2005. .3'.---; Through that memo Decree Holder and "'~l]u'dgment Debtor have produced memo of understanding
-~-efntered into between the parties, whereby the Decree Holder had agreed to receive the decree amount in tilt"
installments in terms of the memo of understanding. In terms of the memo of understanding the Decree Holder agreed to restrict his claim to Rs.13 lakhs out of the amount mentioned in decree in 0.8. No. 172/2001f:....._4*riiei'l"..sa'id amount of Rs.13 lakhs was to be paid_..i.n_"_j'--theil.l.::rn4ann'er2D"~__ mentioned in memo of understanding._Hg0weyer,' th'ereV_g'viiVasg':a default. Thus the Decree .Ho._l_derliil_e'd a Exei;u"tioVng Petition in EP. No. 199/2006.
4. The Judgm'e'nt__'D'erbtior e:nrterred.Vappearance and using memorjiancltlifri cared 07-05-2005 in Ex.P. No. .:qu.e:sti'oné'd:'therlmaintainability of the execut,vi'on' 'plieaé that Memorandum of Understand_in'g cause of action. On this basis he urgedv that a.ssneiN cause of action has arisen. Fresh ..,to and Decree Holder should seek rel--i.ef afresh. The Executing Court despite the Decree_."l3~£_older's contention that memorandum of understanding spells only mode and manner to discharge tghekfilecree amount and does not create new cause of action allowed the application and dismissed the execution petition. Assailing the same Decree Holder is before this court. it
5. This matter is heard on merit for some time and at that stage learned counsel for both sides in their wisdom thought fit to advice their clients to end iis between the parties. Today a memo is filed to the following effec:t::T"»o. Joint Memo fiied by the Petitione~r--.'r'_é' and Respondent ' "The Decreemhoider / pe_titio_ner c"h'e'r'e:'_';%.p'y' reports the receipt of Rs.10,:'=300/-' '(Rupees._Te.n_ « lakhs onty) paid by the mdgrnerit 'd~eb'to'r Respondent towards fLi!E_and 'final satisfacytiotn "
of the Decree in terms _of~,the MQU.dated'«s._U*?.e.. 06-2005 in execution No';s1_44/2oo3..arising out of Decree in Civitsuit NQ...1_7.2_/'2.001 o'n-theflfiie of civil judge (Srv.'__Dy_n) ._}iaiandar, In View of the fu"ii*satisfaction.fi;f"t.he Decree aforesaid, the above protceedin-gj_s__Lrnay be disposed _iht_erms'" "of-1 thisjf._joint«..y memo by recording 'f':i;|sI- 'sati.sfa'cti'o n'"~of' t7he...D1ecree i n the infro n.t~o'u'~ rju's_tice"a_nci 'e,qui_ty;."' . that Decree Hofder is reporting' asuim of Rs.10 Eakhs in cash from the respondent{iudwoméetnt Debtor in full and finai settlement of Ack'now_I_e.dging the receipt of the same in full 'sa'ti'sfactvio~n'_'«oftthe decree agreed to close the execution De.tét'son.t' V' V' 'The iearned counsei for both sides with their "fdreyspuective parties are present. The {earned counsel for &\Q2/ respondent / Judgment debtor tenders Rs.10 lakhs which the petitioner decree hoider receives and declares it is in fuil settiement of his ciaim. The terms are lawful and are accepted, as permissible under Rule 2 of Order XXI'___of the CPC.
8. Accordingly, revision petition is order dated 24-07~2oo9 passed in__E,x,__No._.'i99,i:2'Q€5E3 by learned Principal Civil iudge (Sr. aside. The statement made petitioner*,t)e.fi;;ree,Holder,' that he has received Rs.10 foil andrdfiinal settlement is recorded. Hence, full"'*sVatisf'actio;n"'Cfft,h'e,decree has to be recorded. In the_inre_sult,--'the ma: L-o_urt'_ isfdirected to restore Execution record, full satisfaction of the decree'anclcllosewrtheexecution petition. _VVForvvar:d~--,copy of this order to the trial court for Sdfi Iudcjé