Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs Ram Singh on 1 December, 2022
206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4323 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 1st December, 2022
Jatinder Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Ram Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gopal S. Nahel, Advocate for the respondent.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
Petitioner/decree-holder is impugning the order (Annexure
P-8) dated 07.04.2018 passed by learned Executing Court, Dhuri
whereby the execution application filed by him for execution of the
judgment and decree dated 13.03.2010 in civil suit No.875 of
03.09.2008, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order suffered from patent illegality and had been passed
without appreciating the facts in the right perspective.
Learned counsel submits that the Executing Court while
passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate that though as per the
compromise deed dated 13.03.2010, the sale deed was to be executed
by the parties on or before 18.04.2010, however, rights of the petitioner
1 of 7
were not extinguished after the said date, in view of the conduct of the
parties. He further submits that the deadline for execution of the sale
deed was mutually extended by the parties, which was apparent from
the fact that the respondent/judgment-debtor executed a sale deed
No.1467 qua 10 Bighas 7 Biswas land out of the total land measuring
19 Bighas, on 29.07.2010 in favour of one Gamdur Singh son of
Gurcharan Singh and Janak Raj son of Janak Nath, at the instance of
the petitioner/decree-holder. Still further, learned counsel submits that
vide order dated 03.02.2012 (Annexure P-3), the alienation of the
remaining portion of the suit property owned by the respondent was
stayed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhuri in a suit instituted
by one Achhra Singh, due to which the petitioner was unable to get the
sale deed qua the remaining portion of suit land executed. Learned
counsel has further gone on to submit that even during the pendency of
the aforesaid suit instituted by Achhra Singh, the respondent had
assured the petitioner and also executed an affidavit dated 18.03.2013
(Annexure P-4), wherein the respondent referred to the compromise
decree passed by the Lok Adalat and affirmed it, and still further it was
stated that he would be bound to execute the sale deed qua the
remaining land after vacation of stay passed by the Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhuri. Learned counsel submits that subsequently
the suit instituted by Achhra Singh was withdrawn on the basis of
2 of 7
compromise deed dated 19.09.2014 and since the stay on alienation of
the suit property no longer existed, the petitioner approached and
requested the respondent on multiple occasions to execute the sale deed
qua the remaining portion of land, however, in vain. Thus, left with no
other alternative, the petitioner filed the execution application on
12.01.2015. Learned counsel has vehemently urged that the petitioner
would not lose his right to execute the compromise decree dated
13.03.2010, merely because the execution application had been filed
after about five years, more so, when the respondent had admittedly
agreed to abide by the compromise decree even after the expiry of
deadline set out as per the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent, while controverting the
submissions made by the counsel opposite, contends that the impugned
order does not warrant any interference as it is in accordance with the
provisions of law. He submits that the petitioner had failed to get the
sale deed executed as per the compromise arrived at between the parties
due to paucity of funds, therefore, after sleeping over the matter for as
long as five years, he could not now seek execution of the sale deed.
Learned counsel has urged that stay was granted only on 03.02.2012
and prior to that from 29.07.2010 till the date when the stay was
granted by the Court at Dhuri, the petitioner never approached the
3 of 7
respondent for execution of the sale deed, from which it is discernible
that he was unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the
compromise. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that the
affidavit dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-4) rather reflects upon the bona
fides of the respondent, and the petitioner can certainly not be
permitted to take advantage of the same for getting the sale deed
executed now in his favour. Learned counsel thus, asserts that since the
petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions as
stipulated in the compromise deed, his right to enforce the compromise
decree now stands extinguished.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
It would be relevant to notice here that during the pendency
of the suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner against
the respondent, they arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into
a compromise dated 17.02.2010 (Annexure P-1), and accordingly a
compromise decree dated 13.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) was passed by
the Lok Adalat. As per the terms and conditions set out in the
compromise, the respondent was to execute the sale deed qua the suit
land on receipt of the balance sale consideration, in favour of the
petitioner or in favour of any other person nominated by the petitioner
on or before 18.04.2010. Admittedly, no sale deed was executed on or
4 of 7
before the said date i.e. 18.04.2010. Therefore, the question which
arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the
sale deed executed beyond the date fixed i.e. 18.04.2010. The fact
which predominantly seemed to have weighed with the Executing
Court while passing the impugned order was that since the parties had
failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise
decree, and as no sale deed was executed on or before 18.04.2010,
rights of the parties stood extinguished, and hence the petitioner could
not seek execution of the said compromise decree, that too after a delay
of almost five years.
This Court, however, is of the opinion that the Executing
Court failed to take into consideration some relevant facts and also
overlooked the conduct of the parties.
It would be apposite to point out here that even though the
deadline agreed upon between the parties, for execution of the sale
deed, was 18.04.2010, however, the respondent still went ahead to
execute the sale deed No.1467 dated 29.07.2010 qua a portion of the
suit property in favour of the persons nominated by the petitioner i.e.
Gamdur Singh and Janak Raj. Still further, an affidavit dated
18.03.2013 (Annexure P-4) was sworn in by the respondent whereby he
not only affirmed the compromise decree dated 13.03.2010 but also
affirmed that he would be bound to receive an amount of ` 27.00 lacs
5 of 7
from the petitioner and execute the sale deed qua the remaining portion
of the suit property in his favour after the stay operating against the
alienation of the suit property was vacated. The respondent, therefore,
did not repudiate the compromise dated 17.02.2010 even after the sale
deed was not executed on or before 18.04.2010, as agreed upon by the
parties. Therefore, when the suit filed by Achhra Singh was withdrawn
and injunction order vacated, the petitioner would have stood entitled to
get the sale deed in question executed, more so, when it is not the case
of the respondent either that the affidavit dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure
P-4) was a forged or fabricated document or a result of coercion. It
would also be pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of compromise
dated 19.09.2014 (Annexure P-9) entered into between the respondent
and Achhra Singh along with others, which reads thus:-
"3. That if in future Jatinder Singh @ Goldy will
file any case against Ram Singh regarding land of
Bhojowal then both the parties of the compromise will fight
that case."
A perusal of the above reproduced extract of Annexure P-9
leaves no manner of doubt that there was indeed a collusion between
the respondent and Achhra Singh, and it was thus for reasons but
obvious, the respondent turned turtle, and was now not ready and
willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
6 of 7
Even otherwise, no notice or any other communication was
ever sent by the respondent to the petitioner to express his intention to
revoke the compromise arrived at between the parties due to non-
compliance of the terms and conditions of compromise dated
17.02.2010, by the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove,
the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.04.2018
(Annexure P-8) is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to
continue with the execution proceedings in accordance with law. The
parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on
10.01.2023.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
December 1, 2022
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
