Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 820 (HP)

Competent Automobile Co. Ltd. v. Subhash Chand

2015-07-03

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order P.S. Rana, J. Present revision petition is filed under Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 29.9.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur (H.P.) in execution petition No. 1 of 2006 titled M/s Competent Automobile Company Ltd. vs. Subhash Chand and others. Brief facts of the case 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Parmod Singh deceased plaintiff filed civil suit No. 11 of 2005 under Specific Relief Act 1963 against defendants namely K.K. Mehta Director M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited VPO Gutkar District Mandi H.P. and against Managing Director M/s Competent Automobile Co. Limited Head Office Competent House F-14 Connaught Place New Delhi for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 27.11.2003 executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 for lease of land comprised in Khata No. 87 min, Khatauni No. 90 min Khasra Nos. 602/474/659/476 kita 2 measuring 11 canal 0 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 situated in Tika Tikkar Mauza Mahalta Tehsil and District Hamirpur (H.P.) and another agreement dated 10.12.2003 for the lease of aforesaid land are null and void. It is pleaded that both agreements are the result of fraud misrepresentation coercion and undue influence and are null and void. It is pleaded that plaintiff is not bound by aforesaid agreements dated 27.11.2003 and 10.12.2003 in any manner. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought by way of restraining the defendants not to raise any further construction in any manner over the land in suit. Additional relief of possession by way of demolition of super structure was also sought. Thereafter on dated 22.3.2005 learned trial Court recorded statement of K.K. Mehta Director of M/s Competent Automobile Co. Ltd. Branch Office Gutkar District Mandi H.P. and also recorded statement of Rajinder Kumar son of Shri Parmod Singh and Shri Subhash Chand son of Parmod Singh who was General Attorney of Parmod Singh. Thereafter on dated 22.3.2005 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur passed the order that in view of compromise Ext.CA as well as statements of parties recorded today the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited filed execution petition No. 1 of 2006 titled M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited vs. Subhash Chand and others for execution of order dated 22.3.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Thereafter M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited filed execution petition No. 1 of 2006 titled M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited vs. Subhash Chand and others for execution of order dated 22.3.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Revisionists M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited sought the relief against non-revisionists to the effect that non-revisionists be directed to execute the lease deed in favour of M/s Competent Automobile Company Ltd. relating to immovable property comprised in Khata No. 87 min, Khatauni No. 90 min Khasra Nos. 602/474, 659/476 Kita 2 measuring 11 canal 0 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 situated in Tika Tikkar mauja Mohalta Tehsil and District Hamirpur (H.P.). M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited also sought further relief in execution petition that in default to execute the lease deed on part of non-revisionists then local commissioner be appointed by Court to execute the lease deed in favour of M/s Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. Learned Executing Court dismissed the execution petition and held that no decree was passed by trial Court and on this ground compromise could not be executed and learned trial Court further held that in view of the fact that Parmod Singh plaintiff filed the suit through his next friend and no permission of Court was sought to compromise the case on behalf of Parmod Singh and on this ground compromise Ext.CA could not be executed. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court in execution proceedings revisionists filed the present revision petition. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionists and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-revisionists and Court has also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that findings of Executing Court that suit was dismissed as withdrawn and on this ground compromise Ext.CA executed inter se the parties in CS No. 11 of 2005 titled Parmod Singh vs. K.K. Mehta could not be executed is contrary to law is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned trial Court has dismissed civil suit No. 11 of 2005 titled Parmod Singh vs. K.K. Mehta on dated 22.3.2005 with observations that in view of compromise Ext.CA as well as statements of parties recorded in Court suit stands dismissed as withdrawn. Learned trial Court has dismissed civil suit No. 11 of 2005 titled Parmod Singh vs. K.K. Mehta on dated 22.3.2005 with observations that in view of compromise Ext.CA as well as statements of parties recorded in Court suit stands dismissed as withdrawn. It is held that order of Court for withdrawal of suit could not be read as dehors as per statements of counsel for parties and compromise Ext.CA. It is held that if compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties recorded would take into consideration then it would be clearly proved that parties have amicably settled the matter and amicably determined the rights of parties with regard to the matter in controversy of suit. Learned trial Court had made compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties recorded before the Court as part and parcel of order. It was held in case reported in 1993(27) Delhi Reported Judgments (Delhi High Court) page 62 titled Kerala State Coir Corporation Limited vs. Delhi Intercontinental (Hotels) Private Limited that if suit was dismissed as withdrawn in view of compromise between the parties and undertaking given by learned Advocates in the Court then compromise and undertaking given before the Court would be executable. In view of ruling cited supra it is held that compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties given in CS No. 11 of 2005 are executable. 5. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that findings of Executing Court that in view of the fact that suit was filed by plaintiff Parmod Singh through his next friend and in view of the fact that no leave of Court was granted to execute the compromise and on this ground compromise executed inter se parties could not be executed is also contrary to law is also accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur (H.P.) on dated 22.3.2005 permitted the parties to place on record compromise Ext.CA and it is also proved on record that thereafter learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur also recorded statements of parties. It is proved on record that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur (H.P.) on dated 22.3.2005 permitted the parties to place on record compromise Ext.CA and it is also proved on record that thereafter learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur also recorded statements of parties. In view of the fact that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur permitted the parties to place on record compromise Ext.CA and in view of the fact that learned trial Court also recorded statements of parties it is held that learned trial Court had impliedly permitted the parties to compromise the case and it is well settled law that parties cannot be penalized for the fault of the Court. No objection was raised by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur (H.P.) on dated 22.3.2005 relating to requirement of leave of Court. It is well settled law that Civil Courts are under legal obligation to pass the orders strictly in accordance with law and also to entertain the documents in civil proceedings strictly in accordance with law. In view of the fact that no objection was raised by Court on dated 22.3.2005 when compromise Ext.CA was placed on record and in view of the fact that no objection was raised by Court when statements of parties recorded on dated 22.3.2005 it is held that at the subsequent stage it is not expedient in the ends of justice to nullify the compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties recorded before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur by the Court itself. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that no decree was passed by Court and on this ground execution petition was not maintainable is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties are part and parcel of order of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hamirpur dated 22.3.2005. It is well settled law that parties cannot be allowed to flout the terms and conditions of agreement executed inter se the parties and placed in civil proceedings. It is held that compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties recorded in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2005 titled Parmod Singh vs. K.K. Mehta are part and parcel of order dated 22.3.2005. 7. It is held that compromise Ext.CA and statements of parties recorded in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2005 titled Parmod Singh vs. K.K. Mehta are part and parcel of order dated 22.3.2005. 7. In view of above stated facts order of learned Executing Court dated 29.9.2006 announced in Execution Petition No. 1 of 2006 titled M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited vs. Subhash Chand and others is set aside and it is held that order of learned Executing Court dated 29.9.2006 is illegal. Execution petition is remanded back to learned Executing Court with direction to execute compromise Ext.CA executed inter se the parties in CS No. 11 of 2005 titled Parmod Singh vs. K.K. Mehta strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before Executing Court on date 31.07.2015. File of learned Executing Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.