COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA (P) LTD. versus BEANT SINGH

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 17-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 866
866
COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA (P) LTD.
v.
BEANT SINGH
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 2224-2225 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Decree – Consent decree – Review of – Suit for possession
and mesne profits filed by respondent against petitioner – Petitioner
disputed the area in its possession – Trial court held that this issue
had been settled by High Court in an earlier litigation between the
parties and thus, the same cannot be re-opened – Mesne profits
granted – Cross-appeals for reduction/enhancement thereof – High
Court passed consent decree – Petitioner filed review contending
that terms of the consent decree were recorded incorrectly –
Dismissed – In challenge to the judgment in cross appeals and the
review petition, held: Question of area of possession was settled by
the High Court in the earlier litigation, decreeing the respondent’s
suit for possession for the entire suit property – Petitioner’s challenge
to the said judgment before Supreme Court was dismissed – Thus,
this view attained finality – High Court correct in upholding the
terms of the consent decree directing petitioner to hand over
possession of the entire suit property to the respondent – However,
the consent decree erroneously recorded a 10% increase in mesne
profits every year, instead of every alternate year – This is an error
apparent on the face of the record – Rectified – Mesne profits to be
treated as increasing by 10% every alternate year, from 2009 till
the date of handover of possession – Consent decree modified to
this extent – Suit – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XII, r.6.
Decree – Consent decree – Law of – Discussed.
Disposing of the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Consent decrees are intended to create
estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an
end to further litigation between the parties. This Court has held
that it would be slow to unilaterally interfere in, modify, substitute
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
867
or modulate the terms of a consent decree, unless it is done with
the revised consent of all the parties thereto. However, this
formulation is far from absolute and does not apply as a blanket
rule in all cases. The first impugned judgment of the High Court
dated 14.2.2019 recorded the terms of the compromise that the
Petitioner had agreed to; and that the same Court has
subsequently upheld the validity of that consent decree in the
second impugned judgment dated 25.07.2019. Thus, this Court
would be cautious in exercising its inherent power to interfere
in this consent decree, except where there is any exceptional or
glaring error apparent on the face of the record. [Paras 18-
20][874-D-H; 875-A-B]
Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India & ors.
(1992) 1 SCC 31 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 187 – relied
on.
Gupta Steel Industries v. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
& anr. (1996) 11 SCC 678 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 669;
Suvaran Rajaram Bandekar & ors. v. Narayan R.
Bandekar & ors., (1996) 10 SCC 255 : [1996] 5 Suppl.
SCR 439 – referred to.
1.2 On the question of area of possession:
The 2006 Agreement, which is the relevant agreement for
the present purposes, pertains to the entire suit property, and
does not delimit the licensed area to a 2,200 sq. ft. portion. Thus,
the 2006 Agreement effective from 1.04.2006 to 30.09.2008,
licensed the total area of 5,472 sq. ft. to Petitioner. Hence, the
material on record discloses that the Petitioner is presently in
illegal possession of the entire suit property admeasuring 5,472
sq. ft. Further, this question has already been settled by the High
Court judgment dated 12.11.2014 in the earlier litigation between
the parties, decreeing the Respondent’s suit for possession for
the entire area of 5,472 sq. ft (and not only the 2,200 sq. ft. portion
claimed to be possessed by the Petitioner). In that order, the
High Court had taken note of an admitted document on the record
wherein the Petitioner was stated to be in possession of the entire
suit property. The Petitioner’s challenge to this judgment dated
12.11.2014 before the Supreme Court has been dismissed in
COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA (P) LTD. v. BEANT SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
SLP(C) No. 7531/2015, and R.P.(C) No. 1494/2015 in SLP(C)
No. 7531/2015, by orders dated 16.03.2015 and 15.07.2015
respectively. Thus, this view has attained finality, and the
Petitioner’s efforts

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.