Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gramodhyog Samiti vs M/S. Amol Construction Banswara ... on 27 March, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:16367]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 116/2025

1.       Gramodhyog Samiti, Khadi Ashram Registered Sansthan,
         Rati Talai, Banswara.
2.       Smt. Mridula Kumari W/o Shri Satyavrat Samvedi, Aged
         About 84 Years, President Gramodhyog Samiti, Khadi
         Ashram, Rati Talai, Banswara At Present Residing At 5-H-
         13, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
3.       Ichha Shanker S/o Shri Raj Shanker Sewak, Aged About
         61 Years, Mantri Gramodhyog Samiti, Khadi Ashram, Rati
         Talai, Banswara, Resident Of Nichla Ghantala, Tehsil And
         District Banswara.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
M/s. Amol Construction Banswara, Through Its Proprietor Ashok
Kumar Padaliya S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Padaliya, Resident Of
Dahod Road, Banswara.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Narendra Thanvi with Mr.
                                    Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Jagdish Vyas



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

27/03/2025

1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.08.2024

(Annex.6) passed by learned District Judge, Banswara (hereinafter

as 'the executing Court') in Execution Case No.01/2024. The

prayer made in the instant petition is reproduced as under:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: -

(i) quash the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.-

6) passed by learned District Judge, Banswara in Execution Case No. 01/2024; and

[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (2 of 7) [CW-116/2025]

(ii) the reply cum objections 20.03.2024 filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed throughout with exemplary cost & execution petition filed by respondent may be dismissed; and

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be made in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioners."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent

(Plaintiff) filed a suit (Civil Original Suit No.07/2014) for specific

performance of agreement dated 24.02.2005 against the

petitioners (defendants). During the pendency of the suit the

parties entered into a compromise deed dated 03.02.2022

(Annex.2), wherein the compromise was reduced into writing with

certain terms & conditions, which were mutually agreed to

between the parties. On basis of the aforesaid compromise the

compromise decree dated 04.02.2022 was passed by the District

Judge, Banswara. Thereafter, on account of some construction

raised by the respondent on the disputed property in violation of

the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated

03.02.2022 (Annex.2), the petitioners filed a suit (Civil Misc. Case

No.22/23) for injunction against the respondent before the Civil

Judge, Banswara. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed

execution petition dated 06.11.2023 (Annex.1) under Order XXI

Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as 'CPC')

before the learned executing court. The petitioners field their reply

cum objection (Annex.5) to the execution petition (Annex.1). The

learned executing Court, vide order dated 23.08.2024 (Annex.6)

rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and allowed the

[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (3 of 7) [CW-116/2025]

execution petition (Annex.1). Aggrieved of the same, the

petitioners have filed the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners in their reply cum objection (Annex.5) raised mainly

two objections i.e., firstly, regarding the DLC rates and secondly,

that the respondent has violated condition no.3 of the

Compromise deed (Annex.2) by raising construction on the

common passage situated on the property in question, however,

the learned executing Court has not decided the objection

(Annex.5) raised by the petitioners regarding the violation of

condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). He submits

that, as per Section 47 of the CPC, the executing court was

required to decide all the question arising between the parties

before allowing the execution petition however, the learned

executing court has erred in not deciding his objection. He placed

reliance upon the following judgments: Seth Banarsi Dass (Dead)

by LRs. vs. The District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut & Ors.,

1996 2 SCC 689; Rasamani Dei vs. Naba Kishore Acharya and

Anr., 2006 (1) CivCC 216 (Orissa High Court); Hem Raj Bansal vs.

State Bank of India, 1990 CivCC 105 (P&H High Court); S.V.

Kanakaraj and Ors. vs. Vijaya Bank, Mangalore and Ors., AIR

1987 Kant 252.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the petitioners have not made any objection regarding non-

executability of the compromise decree. He also submits that the

objection regarding violation of condition no.3 of the compromise

deed (Annex.2) can be considered as waived inasmuch as the

petitioners in their reply cum objection (Annex.5) have averred

[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (4 of 7) [CW-116/2025]

that they are ready to execute the agreement subject to payment

of current DLC rates by the respondent. He also submits that the

respondent has not raised any construction on the common

passage situated on the property in question. He also submits that

the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the payment of

DLC rates is not tenable as the same was not part of the

compromise deed (Annex.2). He also submits that there is no

condition in the compromise decree (Annex.2) which stipulates

that the decree can be rendered non-executable on account of

violation of the terms and conditions contained therein. He also

submits that executing court cannot go behind the decree. He

placed reliance on the following judgments: Meenakshi Saxena

and Ors. vs. ECGC Ltd. and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 479; Rahul S.

Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors.,(2021) 6 SCC 418;

Sanwarlal Agrawal and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Kothari and Ors.,

(2023) 7 SCC 307.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. This Court finds that the condition no.3 of the compromise

deed (Annex.2) stipulated, inter alia, that the respondent is not

entitled to raise or demolish any kind of construction on the

passage. The aforesaid condition is reproduced as under:

"3. यह कि, संस्था के पैसेज व जमीन पर बनाई गई सिढ़ियों पर वादी का सिर्फ आने-जाने की सवि ु धा ही रहे गी। पैसेज में किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण पर तोडफोड करने वादी का अधिकार नही रहे गा।"

7. This Court finds that the petitioners in their reply-cum-

objection (Annex.5) have specifically raised the objection

regarding violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed

[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (5 of 7) [CW-116/2025]

(Annex.2). The relevant part of the reply-cum-objection (Annex.5)

is reproduced as under:

"3. यह कि, उक्त प्रकरण में उल्लेखित राजीनामे के अनुसार यह शर्त विहित की गई हैं कि संख्या के पैसेज व जमीन पर बनाई गई सिढ़ीयों पर डिक्रीदार का सिर्फ आने-जाने की सवि ु धा रहे गी तथा पैसेज में किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण एवं तोड़-फोड करने का अधिकार नहीं हैं, परन्तु डिक्रीदार ने संस्था के पैसेज पर अवैध अतिक्रमण करने का प्रयास किया जिस पर संस्था के द्वारा डिक्रीदार व अन्य के विरूद्ध स्थाई निशेधाज्ञा का वाद प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें माननीय सिविल न्यायालय के द्वारा यथास्थिति बनाये रखने के आदे श पारित किये जिसमें प्रकरण सं. 22/2023 विविध दिवानी वाद उनवान संस्था अध्यक्ष ग्रामोद्योग बनाम मैसर्स अमोल कन्स्ट्रक्शन जो वर्तमान में सिविल न्यायालय में विचाराधीन हैं तथा एक अन्य प्रकरण में मद्नु ने डिक्रीदार को रजिस्टर्ड सच ू ना पत्र प्रेषित कर अवैध अतिक्रमण रोकने के लिए सचि ु त किया। इस प्रकार डिक्रीदार ने राजीनामे की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया जिस कारण उक्त डिक्री पालना योग्य नहीं हैं। फिर भी मद्युन एक सार्वजनिक हितार्थ संस्था हैं तथा उपरोक्त राजीनामे के अनुसार डिक्रीदार मद्युन को वर्तमान डी.एल.सी. दर की राशि का भुगतान कर विक्रय पत्र का निष्पादन करा लेवे परन्तु डिक्रीदार ने जानबझ ु कर मद्र ु ांक राशि रूपया 76,900/- बता कर विक्रय पत्र का निष्पादन अपने हक में करवाना चाहता है जिसका डिक्रीदार को कानन ु न कोई अधिकार नहीं हैं।

जबवा आपत्ति के समर्थन में मद्यन ु का शपथ पत्र संलग्न हैं।"

8. This Court, upon perusal of the order dated 23.08.2024

(Annex.6) finds that, the learned executing Court has not dealt

with the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the

violation of condition no.3 of the compromise deed (Annex.2). At

this juncture it would be apposite to refer to Section 47 of the

CPC, and the same is reproduced as under:

"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.--(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

[2025:RJ-JD:16367] (6 of 7) [CW-116/2025]

* * * * * (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

[Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II.--(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section."

Thus, a bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the

executing Court has to decide all the questions arising between

the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, and relating to

the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. However, in

the instant case the learned executing Court has erred in not

deciding the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the

violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed

(Annex.2).

9. As far as the contention of the counsel for the respondent

that the objection regarding the violation of condition no.3 can be

considered as waived, is concerned, this Court is of the considered

view that such questions/contentions cannot be adjudicated upon