Allahabad High Court
Executive Board Methodist Church In ... vs State Of Up And 31 Others on 31 May, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100692
Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6729 of 2024
Petitioner :- Executive Board Methodist Church In India
Respondent :- State Of Up And 31 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Srivastava,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sashi Nadan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondents no. 14, decree holder.
Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order passed by the court sitting in revision setting aside the order passed by the executing court in which direction was issued to deliver possession on the basis of boundaries.
Submission advanced by learned Senior Advocate is that once the suit came to be decided on the basis of compromise and compromise that was part of the decree provided for suit property to be delivered to the decree holder on the basis of boundaries, the court below was not justified in directing for execution of decree by delivery of possession of the property in question of the basis of the area.
Learned counsel for the respondent per contra submits that during execution proceedings, parties had already entered into compromise on 09.3.1994 and delivery of possession had taken place in part on the basis of the said compromise which had been unnecessarily challenged by the judgment debtor in civil suit. He further submits that the trial court was not justified in holding that compromise in question was not verified and in these circumstances the order came to be challenged before the court in revision. He further submits that it is simply matter of remand and executing court will have to look into the matter in the first instance whether the compromise was duly verified or not and if compromise was ultimately held to be not duly verified, then question would arise as to the execution of decree on the basis of compromise reached earlier which is part of the decree passed in suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply states that even though it is a matter of remand, certain observations have been made in the order passed by the revisional court in its observations that are likely to prejudice the interest of judgment debtor at the time of execution of cases under remand. He further submits that he has no objection if the Court observes that executing court will proceed to decide execution case afresh on its own merits without being influenced by observations made by court in revision.
In view of above, this petition stands disposed of with direction that even while deciding the matter afresh under remand the order dated 1.4.2024, executing court will look into this first aspect of the matter as to whether there was any compromise reached between the parties in execution and such compromise was duly verified and if compromise was verified previously, the court will proceed to decide matter accordingly. However, the court if finds that compromise was not verified, then court will proceed to decide execution case strictly in terms of decree passed by the trial court on the basis of compromise on 22.12.1992 without being influenced by the observations made by the court in revision under its order dated 1.4.2024. The executing court will be passing final order disposing of execution case within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Sanjeev
