Smt.Pummy Devi vs Naresh Kumar Jain on 9 April, 2018
The High Court has relied upon its own decision in
Indra vs. Narayan Chand 1979 (2) RCR 1 and a decision of
the Allahabad High Court in M/s Chitra Talkies vs. Durga
Dass Mehta AIR 1973 Allahabad 40. In both the cases, it
was a fresh tenancy which was granted to the judgment-
debtor and not a licence as in the instant case. That apart,
on principles of law, both the decisions, in our opinion,
have not been correctly decided. As observed by us
earlier, it is no doubt open to the parties to adjust or
compromise their rights under the decree, but if it
amounts to adjustment of decree, it must be reported to
the court whose duty it is to execute the decree so that
that court may record or certify the same. If it is not done,
the court before whom the execution proceedings are
initiated will proceed to execute the decree. It is not every
time that the decree-holder and judgment-debtor enter
into a compromise after the decree. The judgment-debtor
may even set up a false case of compromise and creation
of fresh tenancy after the decree. It is in order to prevent
such judgment-debtors that Order XXI Rule 2 has been
enacted so that if such compromise or creation of fresh
tenancy has not been recorded, the judgment-debtor be
not encouraged to initiate another round of litigation
under Section 47 CPC.