Sau. Shobha W/O Vilas Thakare vs Narendra S/O Tumdeo Hulke & Others on 16 March, 2000
11. On going through the facts of both the cases, I find that the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions is not applicable to the facts of
the present case because in Sonusing Dhanusing Patil's case (cited supra), there was a consent decree passed on the basis of the terms agreed upon by the parties and, therefore, the Court held that when such consent decree is passed on the basis of the terms agreed upon by the parties, the Court could not have resorted to exercise the powers under section 148 of Civil Procedure Code and in such case, the Court had no alternative but to pass the necessary orders which are inevitable as a consequence of non-compliance of the terms of the consent decree and on that basis, the order of the executing Court was set aside; whereas in Daxa N. Gandhi's case (cited supra), under the decree for specific performance, the plaintiffs were entitled to get the possession of the flat as they had paid the price for the same. However, the decree provided that if the defendants pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- by certain date, the plaintiffs would not insist upon the decree being carried out and they will mark the decree as fully satisfied and, therefore, this Court held that in such a case, if default takes place, the plaintiffs get no more than what they are entitled to get under the decree and, therefore, there was no question of granting any relief against the forfeiture or penalty.