Smt. Mohini Devi Agarwal W/O Shri ... vs Rashtriya Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3288 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 190/2018

 Smt. Mohini Devi Agarwal W/o Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                            Versus
 Rashtriya Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. Jaipur & Ors.
                                                                        ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)                 :    Mr. G. P. Sharma, with
                                       Mr. Mahesh Gupta
For Respondent(s)                 :    Mr. Rajmal Jain



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                            Order

25/04/2022

In the present case, the respondent-decree holder has filed

execution proceedings pursuant to the decree dated 16.12.2013,

passed on the basis of compromise. The compromise is available

on record. In compromise itself, in Clause 3(G), the respondent-

plaintiff has agreed to the condition that " izfroknhx.k la[;k 3 ,oa 4 dh

Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha gksxh D;ksafd oks iwoZ esa gh dEiuh NksM+ pqds gSa "

Simultaneously in the same compromise, the property of

petitioner-defendant No. 4 continued to be mortgaged with the

respondent-plaintiff-decree holders as per Condition K of the

compromise.

During the course of execution proceedings, the plot No.

5/94-A, Bhawani Singh Lane, Bhawani Singh Road, C Scheme,

Jaipur belonging to the petitioner-defendant No. 4-Smt. Mohini

Devi Agarwal, was attached. Against attachment of property of

petitioner-defendant No. 4, she filed an application under Order 21

Rule 58 of CPC for release of her property from attachment. The

(2 of 3) [CR-190/2018]

executing court dismissed the application, ignoring the terms

incorporated in the compromise itself, whereunder the

respondent-plaintiff had forego his right of recovery the decretal

amount against the defendant No. 4, at least. The trial court also

observed in the impugned order that the application under Order

21 Rule 58 of CPC is not maintainable and considered that

application within scope of Section 47 of the CPC.

Having heard learned counsel for both parties and perusal of

the record as well as impugned order, this court finds that the

matter requires detail hearing in relation to the issue as to

"whether the plaintiff-decree holder can proceed for recovery

against the petitioner defendant No. 4, in relation to her

properties mortgaged with the plaintiff, despite forgoing his right

of recovery against the defendant No. 4 in the compromise?"

Admit.

Heard counsel for parties on stay application.

Record of the execution is laying before this court.

The issue involved in the present revision petition is confined

to the recovery against the petitioner-defendant No. 4, and

release of her attached property. There are other defendant-

decree holders, against whom the execution can be proceeded.

The details of the other properties are also mentioned in the

execution application. Thus, it is hereby ordered that no recovery

shall be made b y the attached property of defendant No. 4 and

the execution proceedings qua the petitioner-defendant No. 4 shall

remain stayed although the respondent-decree holder, would be

free to pursue the execution proceedings against the other

judgment-debtors and their properties, if any.

Record of the case be returned back to the executing court.

                                                              (3 of 3)                                  [CR-190/2018]



                                          The stay application stands disposed of.



                                                                                               (SUDESH BANSAL),J

                                   Pooja /87









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)