Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

58. To recall, the predecessor in interest of the Claimants, after long eight years from 25.02.1991, filed the execution petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to secure reversion of the disputed land in terms of Clause 10 of the Agreement imbued with the comprehension that the Order disposing of the suit on withdrawal on the basis of the settlement between the parties did yield a compromise decree executable in law. This endeavor was resisted by the predecessor in interest of the Respondents principally on two counts namely, there did not exist any executable decree and that the Project had not been abandoned. Though in the first round, the Learned Single Judge, by in his Order dated 12.03.2004 did hold that there was no decree to be executed and left the predecessor in Digitally Signed Signing Date:05.04.2024 16:29:33 interest of the Claimants to seek other remedies on the basis of Clause 10 of the Agreement in accordance with law, in appeal, the Learned Division Bench by its Order dated 18.11.2005 differed from the said view and remanded the matter for a fresh decision whereupon, the Learned Single Judge by his Order dated 30.11.2007, held that the decree holder i.e the predecessor in interest of the Claimants was entitled to warrant of possession of the disputed plot and directed issuance of such warrant. In the appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the Respondents, the Learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by its Order dated 15.04.2009 however restored the view that a dismissed suit could not give rise to an executable decree. In the appeal, preferred against the same by the Claimants before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the dispute(s) arising out of the Agreement have been referred to arbitration on the consent of the parties without forever adjudicating the same on merits.