The scope of the Executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC is limited to questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. Disputes arising after compliance with the decree cannot be resolved in execution.

1. This Execution First Appeal impugns the order dated 20th November, 2015 in Execution Petition No.41/2012 filed by the appellant seeking execution of the compromise decree dated 4th August, 2009 in Suit No.533/2008.

2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 4th March, 2016, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Since then, adjournments were given from time to time. The counsel for the respondent has been appearing. Vide order dated 7th February, 2018, after hearing counsels for some time, the respondent was permitted to file documents along with the Sanctioned Plan and permission to repair the building, from the MCD with advance copy to the counsel for the appellant. The respondent has since filed the Sanctioned Plan from MCD along with letter dated 14th October, 2016 of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation granting permission to carry out the repairs and renovation.

3. The counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent have been heard.

4. The counsel for the appellant has argued :

(i) that there were three suits inter se the parties, all relating to property No. 3195, Ward No. XVI, Gali No. 31, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and of which, suit No.15/2003 aforesaid was one;

(ii) that an umbrella settlement was arrived at between the parties in all the suits and which settlement in the form of an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed in Suit No.15/2003 of the Court of Civil Judge, North, Delhi and statements of the parties were recorded and a compromise decree in terms of the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC passed;

(iii) that under the said compromise decree, the respondent was to reconstruct the property and to hand over vacant peaceful physical possession of one shop on the ground floor of the said reconstructed property, as identified in the site plan of the proposed construction filed along with the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.

(iv) that the respondent carried out the said reconstruction and handed over the shop agreed to be handed over to the appellant and executed a registered sale deed dated 13th April, 2010 with respect to the said shop in favour of the appellant;

(v) that however the MCD/North Delhi Municipal Corporation, on 15th July, 2011, passed an order of demolition of the property on the ground of construction thereon being unauthorized and on 21st April, 2012, an order of sealing of the property on the ground of misuse of the ground floor and in pursuance thereto, sealed the property on 12th May, 2012 and implemented the demolition order on 28th July, 2012;

(vi) since the appellant had been deprived of the shop, to which he was entitled to under the compromise decree, he applied for execution of the compromise decree aforesaid.

5. The Executing Court, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the execution so sought by the appellant, reasoning:

(i) that in terms of the compromise decree, the respondent had constructed the shop and executed the sale deed thereof in favour of the appellant;

(ii) the said construction has been demolished by the MCD on account of the fact that the commercial activity cannot be carried out where the property is situated;

(iii) therefore whatever was stipulated in the compromise decree has been fulfilled by the respondent and the respondent has complied with the decree in letter and spirit;

(iv) though the appellant had received the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from the respondent at the time of execution of the compromise application, by way of security and was required to return the said amount to the respondent, but there was nothing to show that the appellant had returned the said amount;

(v) for the grievance now of the appellant against the respondent, the appellant may initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent; and

(vi) so far as the decree is concerned, the terms and conditions thereof already stand complied with.

6. I have also enquired from the counsel for the appellant, whether the dispu