Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balwant Singh Mahendra vs Arun Singh Mahendra on 11 January, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 11 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 143 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. BALWANT SINGH MAHENDRA S/O LATE SHRI
VIDDYA PRAKASH SINGH MAHENDRA, AGED
ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NEAR
ORPHANAGE JAIL ROAD REWA TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JEEVAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI VIDDHA PRAKASH
SINGH MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O NEAR ORPHANAGE
JAIL ROAD REWA TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. NEELAM MAHENDRA W/O SHRI BALWANT
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O NEAR ORPHANAGE JAIL ROAD
REWA TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ARUN SINGH MAHENDRA S/O LATE SHRI
VIDDHYA PRAKASH SINGH MAHENDRA, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NEAR
ORPHANAGE JAIL ROAD REWA TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI VIDDHYA
PRAKASH SINGH MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 76
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O NEAR
ORPHANAGE JAIL ROAD REWA TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI W/O SHRI MOHAN
SOOD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O H.NO 46,
DEHRADUN ROAD, RISHIKESH (UTTARAKHAND)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/13/2023
3:47:34 PM
2
4. SMT. VINOD KUMARI W/O SHRI VINAY SOOD,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 4307/28,
PANJABI MOHALLA, AMBALA CANTT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. SHOBHA W/O SHRI MAHENDAR PAL SOOD,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 323-C MOTI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW (UTTAR PRADESH)
6. SMT. SUDHA KUMARI W/O SHRI KISHORE
KUMAR DUSAJ, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: THROUGH SATYA PRAKASH SOOD
R/O HOUSE NO 59, HANUMAN COLONY, GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
COLLECTOR, REWA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 13/09/2022
(Annexure P/8) in case No.41-A/2014 passed by Fifth District Judge, Rewa
(M.P.).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a compromise
deed between the parties which is at page No.46 of the petition and despite
expressing no objection to the said compromise deed, respondent Nos.4 & 6
herein while taking recourse to a complete volte face ventured upon to dispute
the same before the Executing Court.
It is contended by the counsel that respondent No.1/plaintiff/decree
holder filed a suit before the trial Court. The said suit was decreed vide
judgement and decree dated 27/02/2004 (Annexure P/1). Assailing the judgment
and decree dated 27/02/2004, the petitioner No.1 filed a First Appeal vide FA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/13/2023
3:47:34 PM
No.358/2004 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed vide order
dated 04/04/2014 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an
Execution Case and sought execution of judgment and decree dated
27/02/2004. During pendency of the execution case, the parties entered into
amicable settlement which ensued in execution of a compromise deed which
has been filed with the present petition at page No.46.
In view of the aforesaid compromise, an application was submitted
before the Executing Court along with the compromise deed and the prayer was
made to conclude the proceedings in terms of the compromise deed. Before the
Executing Court, respondent No.4 & 6 who were judgment debtor No.5 & 7,
raised an objection as regards the said compromise deed and the Executing
Court while entertaining the objection submitted by the judgement debtor No.5
& 7 has rejected the compromise deed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that before the Executing
Court the statement of judgement debtors No.5 & 7 recorded and they
unequivocally expressed that they had no objection regarding disposal of the
proceedings in terms of the compromise deed. Therefore, subsequently they
could not have resiled from their earlier stand and raised an objection regarding
the compromise deed and submits that the impugned order deserves to be
quashed.
Heard submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the
record.
In the present case, the compromise deed is at page No.46. In page 1 of
the compromise deed, it is mentioned that in the first floor of the house,
judgement debtor No.6,7,8 & 9 shall have their shares but in the last line of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/13/2023
3:47:34 PM
same, it is mentioned that in the Government record, the first floor of the house
shall remain in the name of judgment debtor No.6 & 8. This discrepancy was
objected by the judgement debtor Nos.5 & 7 before the Executing Court and
the Executing Court while appreciating the contents of the compromise deed,
concluded that the objection which was being raised by the concerned judgment
debtors was reasonable and proper and the trial Court while observing that there
was only an objection as regards the that part by which the first floor of the
house was to be mutated in the name of judgement debtor Nos.6 & 8 and the
remaining compromise was not disputed by judgement debtor Nos.5 & 7 and
accordingly while accepting the objection submitted by the judgment debtor
Nos.5 & 7 has rejected the compromise deed.
The trial Court while rejecting the said compromise deed has also
observed that the parties can again enter into compromise as per their will and
can proceeded further.
Upon considering the findings arrived at by the Executing Court which
are evident from the perusal of the internal page 5 of the impugned order, this
Court is of the considered view that the same does not suffer from any infirmity
or perversity.
Accordingly, having found no substance, the present petition stands
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/13/2023
3:47:34 PM
