IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adjustments of decrees must be certified and recorded as required by Order 21 Rule 2, and must have the consent or admission of the decree holder. Additionally, applications for adjustments must be filed within the statutory period of limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one of the judgment debtors and one K. Hydroos, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated July 27, 2023 and October 11, 2023 passed in Other Execution Case No.15 of 2021.

2. No arguments were set forth on the order dated July 27, 2023. By the said order, the learned executing court rejected the prayer for stay of the execution proceeding. The learned court was of the view that, as the writ of execution of the decree had been issued by order dated July 24, 2023, directing the bailiff to hand over the possession to the decree holder upon complying with all formalities, execution could not be stayed at the eleventh hour.

3. By the order impugned dated October 11, 2023, the learned Judge rejected the application dated October 10, 2023. The said application was filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court was of the view that the decree in the suit, could not be treated to have been adjusted. There was neither any certificate to that effect, nor any admission of such adjustment by the decree holder.

4. The decree holder in his written objection, denied the contention of the judgment debtor, that there had been adjustment of the decree, on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (in short “MoU”). Rather, the decree holder challenged the genuineness of MoU before the Court of law. There was no scope for adjustment of the decree on the basis of a document, the genuineness which was in question in another suit, pending before a competent civil court.

5. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned advocate for the plaintiff/decree holder submitted that the execution of the MoU dated April 28, 2021, was an admitted position. The plaintiff had accepted that the said MoU had been executed. The only objection was that the execution was under coercion. As per the MoU, the decretal property was to be retained by the petitioner no.1, for his own use and the for the use of his family. The petitioner no.2 as the daughter of the petitioner no.1, was in occupation of the decretal property. In terms of the MoU, she could continue in possession thereof. The decree of eviction was thus adjusted.

6. The writ of delivery of possession could not be executed by the bailiff, when the execution of the MoU was an admitted fact. Merely because the said MoU was under challenge before another court, the pendency of the second suit, would not be a ground to deny or resile from such admission. The admission and the contents of the MoU would clearly amount to adjustment of the eviction decree passed against the petitioner no.2 and her husband. The learned court ought to have proceeded on the provisions of law and held that the execution case could not proceed further, in view of the clauses of the MoU. The MoU was operative between the parties inter se and both were bound by the terms and conditions, thereof.

7. Mr. Banerjee further contended that the Court misread the objection of the decree holder and erroneously held that as the MoU was under challenge in a civil court, the same could not operate as an adjustment of decree. The MoU was executed on April 28, 2021, and the suit challenging the validity of the MoU, was filed after 2 years, as an afterthought i.e. on August 11, 2023, only to negate the effect of such MoU.

8. Order 21 Rule 2 of the CPC prescribed a special procedure for recording adjustment of a decree. The provision dealt with the procedure to be followed in a limited class of cases relating to discharge or satisfaction of the decrees, i.e., when there was adjustment of, or satisfaction of the decree, by a consensual arrangement. Such consensual arrangement could either be expressed or implied, Mr. Banerjee contended that the execution of the MoU, would, go to show that the parties had agreed that the decretal property would fall in the share of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2,