LexM/S. PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. versus M/S. GANGOTRI SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 2 S.C.R. 648 MIS. PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. MIS. GANGOTRI SAHAKARI AVAS S .. LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No(s.) 8297-8298 of 2004) MARCH 30, 2012 [DEEPAK VERMA AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 47 and Or. XX/ - Execution of decree - Questions to be determined - C Compromise decree - Stipulating condition of payment of sum within a particular time - Objections rejected by executing court and order for execution of decree - High Court in civil revision holding that execution application having been filed before the stipulated time, was premature and hence liable D ·to be rejected - Other objections not dealt with - On appeal, held: Premature filing of execution application does not entail its rejection - The decree did not lose its potentiality of executability having been filed on a premature date - Matter remitted to High Court to deal with the objections which were E not dealt with by High Court. In a suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff against first respondent/defendant, a compromise decree was passed. As per the compromise, defendant was required to pay a sum to the plaintiff within six months F from the date of the compromise. Since the defendant did not honour the terms of the decree, appellant/ decree- holder filed application for execution of the decree. The respondent/judgment-debtor objected to the application. Executing court rejected all the objections and directed G for execution of the decree. Single judge of the High Court allowed the civil revision holding that the execution application was premature and thus was liable to be rejected. High Court did not entertain other objections. Hence the present appeals. H 648 PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI 649 SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High A Court, the Court HELD: 1. On a perusal of the various provisions relating to execution as enshrined under Order XXI CPC, there is nothing which lays down that premature filing of 8 an execution would entail its rejection. It is not correct to say that the executing court could not have entertained the execution proceeding solely because it was instituted before the expiry of the period stipulated in the compromise decree despite the factum that by the time C the court adverted to the petition, the said period was over. It is also not correct that the decree had lost its potentiality of executability having been filed on a premature date. [paras 10, 15 and 16) [656-E-F; 660-A) 2. The executing court did not commit any error by D entertaining the execution petition. The Single Judge in civil revision has annulled the said order without any justification. While so doing, he had not dealt with other objections raised by the Judgment-debtor on the ground that they are raised for the first time. The matter is remitted E to the High Court to deal with the objections on merits. [para 19) [661-F-H; 662-A] Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v, Union Bank of India 2005 (2) SCR 680 : (2005) 4 SCC 315; Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional F Distt. Judge and Ors. 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 380 : (1998) 1 SCC 732; Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (1971) 3 SCC 124; Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Ors. 2001 (3) SCR 1129 : (2001) 6 sec 534- relied on. Lal Ram v. Hari Ram 1970 (2) SCR 898 : AIR 1970 SC 1093; Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan 1956 SCR 62 : AIR 1956 SC 359; Chen Shen Ling v. Nand Kishore Jhajharia AIR 1972 SC 726 - distinguished. G H A B. c D E 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '[2012] 2 S.C.R. Anandilal Bhanwarlal v. Kasturi Devi Ganeriwala (1985) 1 SCC 442; Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Asst. ·Comm., Sales Tax, Kanpur 1968 SCR 505 : AIR 1968 SC 488; State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 348 : 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 185 • referred to. Case Law Reference: 2005 (2) SCR 680 Relied on Para 7 1970 (2) SCR 898 Distinguished Para 8 1956 SCR 62 Distinguished Para 8 AIR 1972 SC 726 Distinguished Para 8 • 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 380 Relied on Para 12 (1985) 1 sec 442 Referred to Para 12 (1971) 3 sec 124 Relied on Para 13 1968 SCR 505 Referred to Para 13 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 185 Referred to Para 14 2001 (3) SCR 1129 Relied on Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8297-8298 of 2004. F From the Judgment & Orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.