Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

III. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the Plaintiff prays for refund of the entire institution fee.

IV. Parties will appear on 18.11.09 before the Court for passing orders/decree in terms of the above said agreement

4. In pursuance of the said compromise decree, the property bearing No.221, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore -

560027 (Item No.3 of Schedule A) was jointly sold by all the parties on 28.10.2014. Subsequently, the respondents instituted the instant execution proceedings in Exe No.2356/2023 interalia alleging that the petitioner - judgment debtor had committed breach/default and was not co-operating with the respondents to give effect to and implement and execute the compromise decree

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:571 HC-KAR and as such, the compromise decree required to be executed by the Executing Court. After entering appearance before the Executing Court, the petitioner - judgment debtor contested the proceedings putting forth various contentions including raising a contention regarding limitation on the ground that the compromise decree having been passed on 18.11.2009, the instant execution proceedings which were instituted on 07.09.2023 beyond the period of 12 years as contemplated under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was barred by limitation. The respondents -

11. In this context, the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered the material on record and taken into account that as per the compromise decree itself, the property at Sampangiram Nagar was jointly sold subsequently on 28.10.2014 by both the parties including the petitioner - judgment debtor, who himself participated in giving effect to and implementing and executing the compromise decree subsequent to the decree.

However, subsequent to the decree dated 18.11.2009 and sale deed dated 28.10.2014, the petitioner had allegedly committed default/breach of terms of conditions of the decree which consequently became enforceable only thereafter, as a result of which, the instant execution proceedings were not barred by

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:571 HC-KAR AIR 1985 ORISSA 8102. Hence, on these and other grounds the Judgment Debtor has sought for dismissal of the execution petition.

9. And further the Advocate for DHR has also relied upon another citation reported in Shaifuddin Vs. Kanhaiya Lal reported in the case of AIR 2023 SC (Civil) 1616, wherein their Lordships referring to Article 136 have held, "Limitation - Compromise Decree - cause of action to execute compromise decree arose when premises were removed from possession of Decree Holders."