JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This notice is issued under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of Execution Application No. 5 of 1994 taken out by the defendants in Suit No. 1538 of 1983. The property in question is known as 'Joyden' which is a trust property, comprising of land and building situated at Apolo Reclamation Estate at Bombay Port Trust. Ms. Mary Pereria (settler) and the trustees entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 30th October, 1981 in respect of this property with the plaintiffs Mr. Omprakash Navani (hereinafter referred to as 'Navanis') for consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/-, as trustees of Rishi Gagan Trust. At the time of execution of this agreement, deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made with the vendors Advocates. Later on, suit for specific performance being Suit No. 1538 of 1983 was filed by Navanis for specific performance of agreement dated 30th October, 1981. That suit was disposed of on 18th October, 1984 on the basis of Consent Terms filed by the parties. As per the Consent Terms, it was agreed that the balance sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- was payable by the plaintiffs under the said agreement for Sale dated 30th October, 1981. Out of which amount, Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid to M/s. Husseini Doctor and Company towards legal fees payable by defendants 2 to 5 to them in respect of and relating to the agreement for Sale and matter connected therewith. Further, the plaintiffs shall pay sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- to each of the defendants 2 to 5 as per the terms stated in the Consent Terms. As per Clause 15 of the Consent Terms, the plaintiffs were obliged to pay the balance price of Rs. 14,00,000/- in the manner mentioned in Clause 6 of the Consent Terms, and interest thereon as mentioned in Clause 16 of the Consent Terms on or before the expiry of 15 months from the date of passing of the decree. Time for payment was made essence of that agreement. In other words, 15 months period for payment of balance amount was to expire on 18th January, 1986. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with other details, for the same would not be relevant for deciding the issue that arises for my consideration in this proceedings. Since according to the defendants, the plaintiffs failed to comply with the obligation of payment of balance sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-, as per the terms of the agreement, the consequence as per Clause 23 of the Consent Terms was that the earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest accrued thereon was to stand forfeited and the consent decree passed in accordance with the Consent Terms was to stand automatically cancelled and the Power of Attorney issued in favour of the plaintiffs to stand revoked and the suit to stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Clause 23 of the Consent Terms further provided that the plaintiffs who were put in possession of the property on execution of the Consent Terms, undertook to this Hon'ble Court to redeliver the possession of the said immoveable property to defendants 2 to 5. According to the defendants, since the plaintiffs committed default, the Consent Decree stood cancelled, and that, the Power of Attorney was also revoked in due course of time. The defendants contend that as per Clause 23 of the Consent Terms, the plaintiffs were obliged to redeliver possession of the immoveable property to the defendants 2 to 5 and since that was not done, the defendants filed Execution Application under Order XXI, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 10th November, 1993, which was later on numbered as Execution Application No. 5 of 1994. In Clause J of this application, the defendants have prayed for execution by issuing warrant of possession under Order XXI, Rules 35 and 36 of Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the immoveable property as detailed in the Schedule. As this Execution Application was filed after expiry of two years from the date of the decree. Notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document