[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Gramodhyog Samiti vs M/S. Amol Construction Banswara … on 27 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:16367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 116/2025
1. Gramodhyog Samiti, Khadi Ashram Registered Sansthan,
Rati Talai, Banswara.
2. Smt. Mridula Kumari W/o Shri Satyavrat Samvedi, Aged
About 84 Years, President Gramodhyog Samiti, Khadi
Ashram, Rati Talai, Banswara At Present Residing At 5-H-
13, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Ichha Shanker S/o Shri Raj Shanker Sewak, Aged About
61 Years, Mantri Gramodhyog Samiti, Khadi Ashram, Rati
Talai, Banswara, Resident Of Nichla Ghantala, Tehsil And
District Banswara.
----Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Amol Construction Banswara, Through Its Proprietor Ashok
Kumar Padaliya S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Padaliya, Resident Of
Dahod Road, Banswara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi with Mr.
Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
27/03/2025
1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.08.2024
(Annex.6) passed by learned District Judge, Banswara (hereinafter
as ‘the executing Court’) in Execution Case No.01/2024. The
prayer made in the instant petition is reproduced as under:
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order
or direction: –
(i) quash the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.-
6) passed by learned District Judge, Banswara in
Execution Case No. 01/2024; and(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (2 of 7) [CW-116/2025]
(ii) the reply cum objections 20.03.2024 filed by the
petitioners may kindly be allowed throughout with
exemplary cost & execution petition filed by respondent
may be dismissed; and
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be made in favour of
the petitioners.
(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded
to the petitioners.”
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent
(Plaintiff) filed a suit (Civil Original Suit No.07/2014) for specific
performance of agreement dated 24.02.2005 against the
petitioners (defendants). During the pendency of the suit the
parties entered into a compromise deed dated 03.02.2022
(Annex.2), wherein the compromise was reduced into writing with
certain terms & conditions, which were mutually agreed to
between the parties. On basis of the aforesaid compromise the
compromise decree dated 04.02.2022 was passed by the District
Judge, Banswara. Thereafter, on account of some construction
raised by the respondent on the disputed property in violation of
the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated
03.02.2022 (Annex.2), the petitioners filed a suit (Civil Misc. Case
No.22/23) for injunction against the respondent before the Civil
Judge, Banswara. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed
execution petition dated 06.11.2023 (Annex.1) under Order XXI
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as ‘CPC‘)
before the learned executing court. The petitioners field their reply
cum objection (Annex.5) to the execution petition (Annex.1). The
learned executing Court, vide order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6)
rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and allowed the
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (3 of 7) [CW-116/2025]
execution petition (Annex.1). Aggrieved of the same, the
petitioners have filed the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners in their reply cum objection (Annex.5) raised mainly
two objections i.e., firstly, regarding the DLC rates and secondly,
that the respondent has violated condition no.3 of the
Compromise deed (Annex.2) by raising construction on the
common passage situated on the property in question, however,
the learned executing Court has not decided the objection
(Annex.5) raised by the petitioners regarding the violation of
condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). He submits
that, as per Section 47 of the CPC, the executing court was
required to decide all the question arising between the parties
before allowing the execution petition however, the learned
executing court has erred in not deciding his objection. He placed
reliance upon the following judgments: Seth Banarsi Dass (Dead)
by LRs. vs. The District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut & Ors.,
1996 2 SCC 689; Rasamani Dei vs. Naba Kishore Acharya and
Anr., 2006 (1) CivCC 216 (Orissa High Court); Hem Raj Bansal vs.
State Bank of India, 1990 CivCC 105 (P&H High Court); S.V.
Kanakaraj and Ors. vs. Vijaya Bank, Mangalore and Ors., AIR
1987 Kant 252.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the petitioners have not made any objection regarding non-
executability of the compromise decree. He also submits that the
objection regarding violation of condition no.3 of the compromise
deed (Annex.2) can be considered as waived inasmuch as the
petitioners in their reply cum objection (Annex.5) have averred
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (4 of 7) [CW-116/2025]
that they are ready to execute the agreement subject to payment
of current DLC rates by the respondent. He also submits that the
respondent has not raised any construction on the common
passage situated on the property in question. He also submits that
the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the payment of
DLC rates is not tenable as the same was not part of the
compromise deed (Annex.2). He also submits that there is no
condition in the compromise decree (Annex.2) which stipulates
that the decree can be rendered non-executable on account of
violation of the terms and conditions contained therein. He also
submits that executing court cannot go behind the decree. He
placed reliance on the following judgments: Meenakshi Saxena
and Ors. vs. ECGC Ltd. and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 479; Rahul S.
Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors.,(2021) 6 SCC 418;
Sanwarlal Agrawal and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Kothari and Ors.,
(2023) 7 SCC 307.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. This Court finds that the condition no.3 of the compromise
deed (Annex.2) stipulated, inter alia, that the respondent is not
entitled to raise or demolish any kind of construction on the
passage. The aforesaid condition is reproduced as under:
“3. यह कि, संस्था के पैसेज व जमीन पर बनाई गई सिढ़ियों पर वादी का
सिर्फ आने-जाने की सवि
ु धा ही रहे गी। पैसेज में किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण
पर तोडफोड करने वादी का अधिकार नही रहे गा।”
7. This Court finds that the petitioners in their reply-cum-
objection (Annex.5) have specifically raised the objection
regarding violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (5 of 7) [CW-116/2025]
(Annex.2). The relevant part of the reply-cum-objection (Annex.5)
is reproduced as under:
“3. यह कि, उक्त प्रकरण में उल्लेखित राजीनामे के अनुसार यह शर्त
विहित की गई हैं कि संख्या के पैसेज व जमीन पर बनाई गई सिढ़ीयों पर
डिक्रीदार का सिर्फ आने-जाने की सवि
ु धा रहे गी तथा पैसेज में किसी भी
प्रकार का निर्माण एवं तोड़-फोड करने का अधिकार नहीं हैं, परन्तु डिक्रीदार
ने संस्था के पैसेज पर अवैध अतिक्रमण करने का प्रयास किया जिस पर
संस्था के द्वारा डिक्रीदार व अन्य के विरूद्ध स्थाई निशेधाज्ञा का वाद
प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें माननीय सिविल न्यायालय के द्वारा यथास्थिति
बनाये रखने के आदे श पारित किये जिसमें प्रकरण सं. 22/2023 विविध
दिवानी वाद उनवान संस्था अध्यक्ष ग्रामोद्योग बनाम मैसर्स अमोल
कन्स्ट्रक्शन जो वर्तमान में सिविल न्यायालय में विचाराधीन हैं तथा एक
अन्य प्रकरण में मद्नु ने डिक्रीदार को रजिस्टर्ड सच
ू ना पत्र प्रेषित कर अवैध
अतिक्रमण रोकने के लिए सचि
ु त किया। इस प्रकार डिक्रीदार ने राजीनामे की
शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया जिस कारण उक्त डिक्री पालना योग्य नहीं हैं। फिर
भी मद्युन एक सार्वजनिक हितार्थ संस्था हैं तथा उपरोक्त राजीनामे के
अनुसार डिक्रीदार मद्युन को वर्तमान डी.एल.सी. दर की राशि का भुगतान
कर विक्रय पत्र का निष्पादन करा लेवे परन्तु डिक्रीदार ने जानबझ
ु कर मद्र
ु ांक
राशि रूपया 76,900/- बता कर विक्रय पत्र का निष्पादन अपने हक में
करवाना चाहता है जिसका डिक्रीदार को कानन
ु न कोई अधिकार नहीं हैं।
जबवा आपत्ति के समर्थन में मद्यन
ु का शपथ पत्र संलग्न हैं।”
8. This Court, upon perusal of the order dated 23.08.2024
(Annex.6) finds that, the learned executing Court has not dealt
with the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the
violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). At
this juncture it would be apposite to refer to Section 47 of the
CPC, and the same is reproduced as under:
“47. Questions to be determined by the Court
executing decree.–(1) All questions arising between
the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or
their representatives, and relating to the execution,
discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be
determined by the Court executing the decree and not by
a separate suit.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (6 of 7) [CW-116/2025]
* * * * *
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is
or is not the representative of a party, such question
shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by
the Court.
[Explanation I.–For the purposes of this section, a
plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant
against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to
the suit.
Explanation II.–(a) For the purposes of this section, a
purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree
shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the
decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of
such property to such purchaser or his representative
shall be deemed to be questions relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within
the meaning of this section.”
Thus, a bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the
executing Court has to decide all the questions arising between
the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, and relating to
the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. However, in
the instant case the learned executing Court has erred in not
deciding the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the
violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed
(Annex.2).
9. As far as the contention of the counsel for the respondent
that the objection regarding the violation of condition no.3 can be
considered as waived, is concerned, this Court is of the considered
view that such questions/contentions cannot be adjudicated upon
by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and it is upon the learned executing Court to
decide the same.
10. Thus, in view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate
to quash and set aside the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6) qua
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (7 of 7) [CW-116/2025]
the non-adjudication of the objection raised by the petitioner in
respect to the violation of the condition no.3 of the compromise
deed (Annex.2). The matter is remanded back to the learned
executing Court to decide the objection raised by the petitioner
with respect to violation of the terms and conditions of the
compromise deed (Annex.2) raised by the petitioners in the reply-
cum-objection (Annex.5).
11. Accordingly, the instant petition stands partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of. No order as to the costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
34-/devesh/-
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link