Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. 1st Appellant had filed A.No.5792 of 2009 to reject the plaint C.S.No.1042 of 2008 alleging that based on compromise memo, compromise decree was passed in C.S.No.277 of 2009 and that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of its own decree. That too, by its order dated 08.04.2003 in O.S.A.No.96 to 98 of 2003 when the Division Bench has expressed its opinion that it is open to the parties to get the compromise decree executed. Rejection of the plaint was also sought on the ground that the building in question was constructed after obtaining planning permission from CMDA and therefore, there is no question of unauthorised building and the suit [C.S.No.1042 of 2008] is clear abuse of process of law. Since, decree in C.S.No.277 of 2009 was passed based on the compromise memo, as per the provisions under Order 23, Rule 3A C.P.C., the suit is barred.

(5)The plaintiff is also directed to deposit the sum of Rs.74,70,000/- to the credit of the suit in three months;
(6)The defendants are directed to co-operate with the plaintiff as well as the Advocate Commissioner to enable them to complete the construction within the said period; and (7)On completion of the construction in a period of three months, the plaintiff is directed to hand over possession to the respective defendants in accordance with the compromise decree dated 30.04.2001.

21. 1st Appellant has preferred appeal in O.S.A.Nos.96 to 98 of 2003 against the said order in O.A.Nos.162, 976 and 977 of 2022. When the appeals came up for hearing, 1st Appellant sought to withdraw those applications [O.A.Nos.162, 976 & 977 of 2002]. By the Judgment dated 08.04.2003, the Appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench as "rendered infructuous" with a clarification that parties are free to execute the compromise decree by taking recourse to the regular execution proceedings. The Judgment dated 08.04.2003 reads as under:-

"Shri T.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, seeks leave to withdraw the Original Application Nos.162, 976 and 977 of 2002 as the said applications were not maintainable at all, they having been filed after the compromise decree was ordered upon by the court and the judgment passed on that basis. There is no opposition of this move by Shri G.Subramanian, learned senior counsel for the respondents before us. Hence, the original applications themselves are permitted to be withdrawn. With the result, the Original Side Appeals are rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such. It is clarified that the parties are free to execute the compromise decree by taking recourse to the regular execution proceedings. ...."

22. Contention of Appellants is that in O.S.A.Nos.96 to 98 of 2003 when the Division Bench has clarified that parties are free to execute the compromise decree by taking recourse to the regular execution proceedings, it is for the Respondents to approach only the Execution Court for executing the compromise decree dated 30.04.2001 and while so, with a view to nullify the effects of the compromise decree, Respondents have filed the present suit C.S.No.1042 of 2008. Further contention of Appellants is that the present suit seeking to declare the compromise decree as null and void is not permissible under law and Respondents are to avail the remedy only before the Execution Court. Main contention of Appellants is that for any complaints of non-performance of obligations in the compromise decree in C.S.No.277 of 2009, Respondents ought to have approached only the Execution Court and a regular suit is not maintainable. Much reliance was placed upon the observations in O.S.A.Nos.96 to 98 of 2003. It was further contended that the allegations raised in the plaint are to be agitated only before the Execution Court and no fresh cause of action has arisen in the present case to file a fresh suit to set aside the compromise decree dated 30.04.2001.