JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:—Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court on 18-9-1998 in Suit No. 922 of 1997 as well as failed to comply with the undertakings given to the Court while the said suit was being disposed of by way of Consent Terms. The contention is sought to be controverted on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have assigned the said decree in favour of M/s. Belly Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for a valuable consideration under a deed of assignment dated 27-10-1999 and therefore such a petition at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable. It was secondly sought to be contended that the decree dated 18-9-1998 is a conditional one and therefore the non-compliance thereof can entitle the decree holder to seek execution of the said decree and there cannot be an occasion for proceeding against the respondents/contemners for contempt of Court. Thirdly, it was sought to be contended that the consent decree does not contain any undertaking to the Court and is a mere consent decree and therefore it can be only an executable decree and it cannot be said that there is any violation of the Courts direction or the undertaking to the Court. Fourthly, it was sought to be contended that the possession of the 5th floor is with the Court Receiver and the respondents have no objection for delivery of the possession of the facts on the 4th floor. It was also sought to be contended that the proceeding are filed beyond the period of six months from the date of the decree and therefore they are barred by the law of limitation.

2.By order dated 21-2-2000, after hearing the parties, the contempt proceedings were admitted for final hearing. The contention sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents in the course of the argument were also sought to be raised at the time of admission and it was observed that all those points can be decided at the final hearing.

3.The fact that the proceedings in the Civil Suit No. 922 of 1997 were disposed of in accordance with the Consent Terms filed by the parties is not in dispute. The order which was passed while accepting the consent terms filed by the parties on 18-9-1998 reads thus:

"Counsel for the plaintiffs defendants are present. They have filed the consent terms duly signed by the plaintiffs and defendants and their respective Advocates. The plaintiff is present. He admits his signature and the contents of the consent terms. The advocate for the defendants identify and admitted the signature of his client. The consent terms are taken on record and marked X for identification. The consent terms and undertakings, if any, are accepted. There shall be decree in terms of the Consent Terms. ......."

Plain reading of the above order therefore discloses that the suit was disposed of in accordance with the consent terms including the undertakings therein and while accepting the consent terms even the undertakings given by the parties in those consent terms were accepted by the Court. The grievance of the petitioners therefore will have to be considered bearing in mind this fact situation.

4.Apart from the said order referring to the undertakings in the Consent Terms, plain reading of the consent terms also would disclose that in terms of Clause (1) thereof the contemners/defendants had not only agreed but had also undertaken to make payment of an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on or before the expiry of 180 days from the date of execution of those consent terms. Further, in Clause (11) the contemners/defendants had agreed and undertaken to procure conveyance into the name of the society that may be formed by the purchasers of the building. In addition to the said undertakings, the consent terms read with the said order of the Court also directed the respondent/contemners to transfer, convey and assign the flats in respect of which the decree was passed to the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document