Gramodhyog Samiti vs M/S. Amol Construction Banswara ... on 27 March, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gramodhyog Samiti vs M/S. Amol Construction Banswara ... on 27 March, 2025

1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6) passed by learned District Judge, Banswara (hereinafter as 'the executing Court') in Execution Case No.01/2024. The prayer made in the instant petition is reproduced as under:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: -

(i) quash the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.-

6) passed by learned District Judge, Banswara in Execution Case No. 01/2024; and (Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16367] (2 of 7) [CW-116/2025]

(ii) the reply cum objections 20.03.2024 filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed throughout with exemplary cost & execution petition filed by respondent may be dismissed; and

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be made in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioners."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit (Civil Original Suit No.07/2014) for specific performance of agreement dated 24.02.2005 against the petitioners (defendants). During the pendency of the suit the parties entered into a compromise deed dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.2), wherein the compromise was reduced into writing with certain terms & conditions, which were mutually agreed to between the parties. On basis of the aforesaid compromise the compromise decree dated 04.02.2022 was passed by the District Judge, Banswara. Thereafter, on account of some construction raised by the respondent on the disputed property in violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.2), the petitioners filed a suit (Civil Misc. Case No.22/23) for injunction against the respondent before the Civil Judge, Banswara. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed execution petition dated 06.11.2023 (Annex.1) under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as 'CPC') before the learned executing court. The petitioners field their reply cum objection (Annex.5) to the execution petition (Annex.1). The learned executing Court, vide order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6) rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and allowed the (Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16367] (3 of 7) [CW-116/2025] execution petition (Annex.1). Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have filed the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in their reply cum objection (Annex.5) raised mainly two objections i.e., firstly, regarding the DLC rates and secondly, that the respondent has violated condition no.3 of the Compromise deed (Annex.2) by raising construction on the common passage situated on the property in question, however, the learned executing Court has not decided the objection (Annex.5) raised by the petitioners regarding the violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). He submits that, as per Section 47 of the CPC, the executing court was required to decide all the question arising between the parties before allowing the execution petition however, the learned executing court has erred in not deciding his objection. He placed reliance upon the following judgments: Seth Banarsi Dass (Dead) by LRs. vs. The District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut & Ors., 1996 2 SCC 689; Rasamani Dei vs. Naba Kishore Acharya and Anr., 2006 (1) CivCC 216 (Orissa High Court); Hem Raj Bansal vs. State Bank of India, 1990 CivCC 105 (P&H High Court); S.V. Kanakaraj and Ors. vs. Vijaya Bank, Mangalore and Ors., AIR 1987 Kant 252.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have not made any objection regarding non- executability of the compromise decree. He also submits that the objection regarding violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2) can be considered as waived inasmuch as the petitioners in their reply cum objection (Annex.5) have averred (Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16367] (4 of 7) [CW-116/2025] that they are ready to execute the agreement subject to payment of current DLC rates by the respondent. He also submits that the respondent has not raised any construction on the common passage situated on the property in question. He also submits that the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the payment of DLC rates is not tenable as the same was not part of the compromise deed (Annex.2). He also submits that there is no condition in the compromise decree (Annex.2) which stipulates that the decree can be rendered non-executable on account of violation of the terms and conditions contained therein. He also submits that executing court cannot go behind the decree. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Meenakshi Saxena and Ors. vs. ECGC Ltd. and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 479; Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors.,(2021) 6 SCC 418; Sanwarlal Agrawal and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Kothari and Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 307.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court finds that the condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2) stipulated, inter alia, that the respondent is not entitled to raise or demolish any kind of construction on the passage. The aforesaid condition is reproduced as under:

"3. यह कि, संस्था के पैसेज व जमीन पर बनाई गई सिढ़ियों पर वादी का सिर्फ आने-जाने की सवि ु धा ही रहे गी। पैसेज में किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण पर तोडफोड करने वादी का अधिकार नही रहे गा।"

7. This Court finds that the petitioners in their reply-cum- objection (Annex.5) have specifically raised the objection regarding violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16367] (5 of 7) [CW-116/2025] (Annex.2). The relevant part of the reply-cum-objection (Annex.5) is reproduced as under:

"3. यह कि, उक्त प्रकरण में उल्लेखित राजीनामे के अनुसार यह शर्त विहित की गई हैं कि संख्या के पैसेज व जमीन पर बनाई गई सिढ़ीयों पर डिक्रीदार का सिर्फ आने-जाने की सवि ु धा रहे गी तथा पैसेज में किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण एवं तोड़-फोड करने का अधिकार नहीं हैं, परन्तु डिक्रीदार ने संस्था के पैसेज पर अवैध अतिक्रमण करने का प्रयास किया जिस पर संस्था के द्वारा डिक्रीदार व अन्य के विरूद्ध स्थाई निशेधाज्ञा का वाद प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें माननीय सिविल न्यायालय के द्वारा यथास्थिति बनाये रखने के आदे श पारित किये जिसमें प्रकरण सं. 22/2023 विविध दिवानी वाद उनवान संस्था अध्यक्ष ग्रामोद्योग बनाम मैसर्स अमोल कन्स्ट्रक्शन जो वर्तमान में सिविल न्यायालय में विचाराधीन हैं तथा एक अन्य प्रकरण में मद्नु ने डिक्रीदार को रजिस्टर्ड सच ू ना पत्र प्रेषित कर अवैध अतिक्रमण रोकने के लिए सचि ु त किया। इस प्रकार डिक्रीदार ने राजीनामे की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया जिस कारण उक्त डिक्री पालना योग्य नहीं हैं। फिर भी मद्युन एक सार्वजनिक हितार्थ संस्था हैं तथा उपरोक्त राजीनामे के अनुसार डिक्रीदार मद्युन को वर्तमान डी.एल.सी. दर की राशि का भुगतान कर विक्रय पत्र का निष्पादन करा लेवे परन्तु डिक्रीदार ने जानबझ ु कर मद्र ु ांक राशि रूपया 76,900/- बता कर विक्रय पत्र का निष्पादन अपने हक में करवाना चाहता है जिसका डिक्रीदार को कानन ु न कोई अधिकार नहीं हैं।

जबवा आपत्ति के समर्थन में मद्यन ु का शपथ पत्र संलग्न हैं।"

8. This Court, upon perusal of the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6) finds that, the learned executing Court has not dealt with the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to Section 47 of the CPC, and the same is reproduced as under:

"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.--(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (6 of 7) [CW-116/2025] * * * * * (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

[Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II.--(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section."

Thus, a bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the executing Court has to decide all the questions arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. However, in the instant case the learned executing Court has erred in not deciding the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed (Annex.2).

9. As far as the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the objection regarding the violation of condition no.3 can be considered as waived, is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that such questions/contentions cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is upon the learned executing Court to decide the same.

10. Thus, in view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6) qua (Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16367] (7 of 7) [CW-116/2025] the non-adjudication of the objection raised by the petitioner in respect to the violation of the condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). The matter is remanded back to the learned executing Court to decide the objection raised by the petitioner with respect to violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed (Annex.2) raised by the petitioners in the reply- cum-objection (Annex.5).

11. Accordingly, the instant petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to the costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 34-/devesh/-

(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur