Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 590 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar v. Kamladevi

2016-07-21

M.K.MUDGAL

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is being heard finally at the motion stage. 2. The applicants have filed this civil revision under section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Sabalgarh dismissing the objection filed by them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.118/2013, the learned trial Court was directed to decide the objections filed by them by speaking order but learned trial Court has not given specific findings as regard to objections filed by the applicants. Counsel further argues that the trial Court has no right to go beyond the decree passed by the same but in this matter the trial Court is executing the decree beyond its jurisdiction because no decree was passed by the trial Court for giving possession to the respondent, hence the order passed by the trial Court be set aside. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises, reported in 1998 Legal Eagle (SC) 1121. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and specific findings have been recorded by the Court that the objections raised on behalf of the applicants do not have any substance because the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.9.2010 was passed on the basis of the compromise which was arrived at between both the parties and legality and propriety of the said decree was not challenged by the applicants. The said decree is binding on the applicants as well as on the respondent. When the applicants did not comply with their part of the terms and conditions of the compromise the execution proceeding was filed by the respondent and learned trial Court is executing the decree as per the terms and conditions of the compromise as well as the decree dated 21.9.2010. When the applicants did not comply with their part of the terms and conditions of the compromise the execution proceeding was filed by the respondent and learned trial Court is executing the decree as per the terms and conditions of the compromise as well as the decree dated 21.9.2010. Counsel further contends that as per the compromise, 2/3rd share of northern side of the disputed house was given to the applicants/plaintiff and 1/3rd share of southern side of the house was given to the respondent and according to the said compromise, the property was partitioned between them. The respondent complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise and handed over the possession of the left side of the house to the applicants but the applicants dishonestly did not comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise and has not delivered the possession of the same to the respondent, therefore, the objections have been rightly rejected by the trial Court. 5. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 6. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicants/plaintiff filed a suit bearing No.50-A/2006 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession as regards the disputed house against the respondent/defendant and the preliminary decree was passed vide judgment dated 14.11.2008, when the applicants filed an application for final decree before the trial Court the dispute was settled between the parties and a compromise petition which was filed by them was accepted by the Court and final decree was passed on 21.9.2010 whereby the 1/3rd share of southern side of the house was given to the respondent and 2/3rd share of northern side was given to the applicants and according to which alleged portions were to be exchanged between the parties. The respondent complied with the terms and conditions of compromise and the decree dated 21.9.2010 by handing over the possession to the applicants but the applicants did not comply with the same because of that the respondent again filed the execution proceeding before the trial Court. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the objections raised by the applicants have been decided by the trial Court by giving specific findings. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the objections raised by the applicants have been decided by the trial Court by giving specific findings. The submissions of the applicants to the effect that the possession of the divided share by the impugned decree dated 21.9.2010 is not to be handed over or given to the parties, does not appear to be correct because when both the parties agreed before the trial Court by submitting compromise application whereby the specific portion of the disputed house were allotted to them in consequence of the decree dated 21.9.2010 the possession of the allotted portions ought to have been handed over to each other and it is impliedly understood in the compromise and the decree also. In the said circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the learned trial Court is going to execute the decree beyond it. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the objections filed by the applicants do not have any substance. Consequently, learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the same. Resultantly, this revision filed by them being meritless is hereby dismissed. Sanjay Kumar Sharma for applicants; Mahesh Goyal for respondent.