Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Pradyuman Overseas Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Sanjeev Jindal - Respondent
CM (M). No. 54 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2020
For the Petitioner:Sandeep Bajaj, Aakanksha Nehra, Parag Rai, Advocates
For the Respondent:Bhagat Singh, Advocate
Timely response to execution petitions, compliance with court directions, and the requirement for providing evidence of settlement agreements and disclosing assets are crucial in execution proceedings.
Headnote:
Decree Holder - Suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC - Order XXI CPC
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC and obtained a decree in their favor. The Decree Holder subsequently filed an execution petition, and the Judgment Debtor claimed that a settlement had been entered into to satisfy the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the Judgment Debtor to provide evidence of the alleged settlement agreement and to disclose a complete list of movable and immovable assets. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the execution petition.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity and proof of the alleged settlement agreement, the delay in filing the application under Order XXI CPC, and the disclosure of the Judgment Debtor's assets.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of timely response to execution petitions and the need for parties to comply with court directions promptly. The Court also highlighted the requirement for the Judgment Debtor to provide evidence of the alleged settlement agreement and disclose their assets.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the petition and all pending applications, directing the parties to appear before the Executing Court on a specified date.
JUDGMENT :
CM APPL. 2350/2020 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CM (M) 54/2020
2. The name of ld. counsel for the Respondent has been mentioned in the memo of parties. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner agrees to delete his name and file the amended memo of parties within one week.
3. Suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC was filed by the Plaintiff - M/s. Pradyuman Overseas Ltd. (hereinafter, “Decree Holder”) against Mr. Sanjeev Jindal (hereinafter, “Judgment Debtor”). Vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2013, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
“23. The defence raised in the leave to defend application is indeed a moonshine and vexatious. The defendant is thus not entitled to leave to defend and his application therefor is dismissed.
24. Though the defendant had in the document dated 25th June, 2010 acknowledging liability agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum but still I am not inclined to grant interest on the said rate for the period during the pendency of the suit.
25. Axiomatically, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.44,31,978.02 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.41,66,895/-@ 9% per annum being the average rate at which interest is paid by Nationalized Banks on fixed deposits, from the date of institution of the suit and till three months after the date of this decree and with future interest thereafter @ 18% per annum.
26. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of this suit as per schedule. Decree sheet be drawn up.”
4. The Decree Holder, thereafter, filed the execution petition in the year 2015. The same is pending before the Executing Court. In the execution proceedings, after a lapse of a considerable period, the Judgment Debtor filed an application under Order XXI CPC claiming that a settlement has been entered into by which the decree has been satisfied. In the said application, the Executing Court passed an order directing framing of an issue and listed the matter for recording the evidence of the parties. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2019 is set out herein below:
“3. Counsel for DH has argued that the present application u/O 21 CPC is not maintainable at this stage of the matter since firstly it is not within the limitation period as prescribed under Article 125 of the Limitation Act which stipulates that any adjustment or satisfaction of the decree has to be recorded by the court within 30 days from the date of payment. Secondly, he has argued on the maintainability of this application on the ground that the JD has not made the payment as per mandate of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC as he has neither deposited the payment in the court nor he has sent any money order or bank draft to the DH. This court does not agree with the contention of the DH regarding payment as per mandate of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC, as pointed out by the counsel for DH since as per Order 21 Rule 1 (b) CPC, the payment could have been made by the JD “by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing". The JD alongwith the present application has placed on record the photocopy of the settlement allegedly reached between the parties, which is disputed by the DH. But, the perusal of the settlement deed dated 06.06.2016, shows the signatures of the Directors of the DH company on the said settlement, hence, in this background of the case, the court deem it appropriate to invoke its powers u/s 47 CPC which envisages that any question relating to discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the executing court. The issue of execution of compromise deed dated 06.06.2016, between the parties cannot be decided without leading evidence by the parties to this effect. Similarly, the issue of limitation raised by the DH shall also be decided after the evidence of both the parties on the compromise deed dated 06.06.2016.
4. In view
