Trilok Sidara vs Lalita Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 6980 Chatt

                                                                        NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CR No. 22 of 2021
       Trilok Sidara S/o. Atal Ram Sidara Aged About 58 Years R/o.
        Near Manohar Talkies, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ---- Applicant
                                                            Decree Holder
                                      Versus
   1. Lalita Bai W/o. Late Harichandra Chouhan Aged About 58 Years
      R/o Village Parsada, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District
      Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
                                                          ---- Respondents
                                                               Defendants



For Applicant                     :       Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For Respondent No.1               :       Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2/State         :       Shri Avinash K. Mishra, G.A.


                   Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey


                              Order On Board
21/11/2022
01.     Heard on admission.

02.     The revision is admitted for hearing.

03.     With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

04.     This civil revision has been filed against the order dated

12.7.2021 passed by the Executing Court/II Additional District Judge,

Bilaspur in Execution Case No.14-A/2018 whereby the Executing Court

allowed the objection of the judgment-debtor and closed the execution

proceedings.
 05.   Facts

, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this case are that

the applicant filed execution for preliminary decree passed in Civil Suit

No.119-A/2014 vide judgment dated 8.8.2015. This judgment was

passed in the National Lok Adalat. During execution proceedings, the

judgment-debtor raised objection on 5.7.2021 and the learned

Executing Court allowed the said objection and closed the execution

proceedings on 12.7.2021. Hence this civil revision.

06. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned

order passed by the Executing Court is per se illegal, erroneous and as

such, liable to be set aside. The Executing Court has failed to

appreciate that the judgment-debtor cannot be permitted to challenge

the compromise decree on whatsoever grounds otherwise the very aim

and object of mutual settlement between the parties would be

frustrated. The applicant has deposited the balance of sale

consideration in the CCD of the trial Court as per direction of the Court.

The objection filed by the judgment-debtor itself was not maintainable

and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of

Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 766; Kumar

Dhirendra Mullick and others Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd.,

(2005) 9 SCC 262; Smt. Vatsala Shankar Bansole Vs. Shri

Sambhaji Nanasaheb Khandare and another, 2002 SCC OnLine

Bom 473 and Gitabai and others Vs. Sunil Kumar and others,

2018(3) MPLJ 400.

07. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that both the

parties have filed application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC; they have entered into compromise in this execution

proceeding also and remaining amount of sale consideration is

deposited in the CCD of the trial Court. Therefore, the matter may be

remitted to the Executing Court with a direction to pass a final decree

and execute the sale deed as per agreement between the parties.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

09. It is clear from the order sheets and the documents that when

execution was filed by the applicant/decree holder, the learned trial

Court allowed the applicant to deposit the balance of the sale

consideration in CCD of the Court.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and

others (supra) observed in para 29 as under:

"29. In the case of K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar reported in [AIR 1980 SC 512] it has been held as follows:

"It is perfectly open to the court in control of a suit for specific performance to extend the time for deposit, and this court may do so even now to enable the plaintiff to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour. The disentitling circumstances relied upon by the defendant- respondent are offset by the false pleas raised in the course of the suit by him and rightly negatived. Nor are we convinced that the application for consideration and extension of time cannot be read, as in substance it is, as a petition for more time to deposit. Even so, specific performance is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to the opposite party even while granting the relief. The final end of law is justice, and so the means to it too should be informed by equity. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity. Here, the assignment of the mortgage is not a guileless discharge of the vendor's debt as implied in the agreement to sell but a disingenuous disguise to arm herself with a mortgage decree to swallow up the property in case the specific performance litigation misfires. To sterilize this decree is necessary equity to which the appellant must submit herself before she can enjoy the fruits of specific performance."

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

settlement/compromise between the parties as is mentioned in the

application IA No.03, the impugned order dated 12.7.2021 passed by

the trial Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

concerned Executing Court with a direction to execute the decree

dated 8.8.2015 in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the

Court below on 5.12.2022. The civil revision is, accordingly, disposed

of.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

Khan