Delhi High Court
Smt.Surjeet Kaur And Other vs Shri Krishan Bhandari on 28 April, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Ex.P.No.75/2007
% Date of Decision: 28.04.2009
Smt.Surjeet Kaur and other .... Decree Holders
Through Mr.M.S. Mishra, Advocate
Versus
Shri Krishan Bhandari .... Judgment Debtor
Through Mr.P.K. Rawal and Mr.Ajay Bahl,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in YES
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
*
This is a petition for execution of compromise decree passed in
Suit No.436 of 1986.
The plaintiff had filed the suit for rendition of account, injunction
and recovery of money which was settled between the plaintiff, Shri
Krishan Bhandari and M/s.Saggu Engineering Works and others and
an application under Order XXIII rule 3 dated 27th August, 1987 was
filed. Under the settlement, the plaintiff was permitted to be in
possession of the areas which was in his exclusive possession and it
was agreed that the plaintiff/decree holder shall be free to carry on
business. The plaintiff was, however, liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-
per month from 1st August, 1987 to the defendant for having possession
of the premises and consequent thereto all the previous claims between
the parties were settled and concluded. A writ petition being CWP
No.1086/1986 was also pending between the parties where defendants
were a party and the defendants had consented to continuation of
electricity connection already granted by Delhi Electricity Supply
Undertaking in the name of plaintiff.
The parties had also agreed that the defendants will not cause
any obstruction or objection to carry on business and that the
defendants will give water supply free of any obstruction and continue
to permit the plaintiff and his employees and staff to use common toilet
etc. without any hindrance. The plaintiff had also agreed to pay agreed
charges by 7th of each month in advance and after the agreed period of
two-and-a-half years, the plaintiff had agreed to vacate the premises
under his possession. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, the decree was passed on 7th September, 2007 seeking issuance
of warrants of possession of the premises measuring 1495 sq.ft. on
ground floor of property bearing No.B-75, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial
Area, Delhi.
The limitation for filing the execution petition for a decree under
Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1996 is 12 years from the date decree
or order becomes enforceable. Under the decree dated 7th September,
1987, the defendants became entitled for recovery of possession after
two years and six months from 1st November, 1986. The said period of
two years and six months expired on 30th April, 1989.
Apparently, the decree became executable on 30th April, 1989 and
its execution sought on 27th January, 2007 is barred by time.
In the circumstances, the decree holder is not entitled to
maintain the execution petition being barred by time. The petition is,
therefore, dismissed as barred by time.
April 28, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'
