IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to comply with a settlement agreement and decree can entitle the decree holder to enforce the decree like a money decree, including the recovery of the decretal amount by selling the subject property.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) - This appeal impugns the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the ADJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Executing Court') in execution petition bearing Ex. No. 964/2017, titled as `Neeru Jain v. Sanjay Kumar Jain', whereby the Appellant's execution petition was dismissed.

1.1. The Appellant is the decree holder and the Respondent is the judgment debtor. The Appellant is the sister-in-law of the Respondent.

1.2.  The execution petition was filed by the Appellant seeking execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 passed by the Trial Court in civil suit no. 09/2015.

2.  The learned counsel for the Appellant states that the parties to the suit had entered into a settlement/compromise agreement dated 14.07.2016 (`settlement agreement') before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi. He states in terms of the said settlement agreement and more specifically clause no. `2' therein, the Respondent herein had undertaken to make payment of Rs.18 lakhs to the plaintiff in five (5) instalments.

2.1.  He states that in lieu of the said payments the plaintiff had agreed to hand over all the documents with respect to Flat No. B-4/90A, Ground Floor, Residential Scheme, Lawrence Road, Delhi-35 (`subject property'), which were in her possession to enable the defendant to have the subject property converted into freehold from leasehold.

2.2.  He states that the said settlement agreement was filed before the Trial Court and a decree in terms of the said settlement agreement was passed by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.10.2016, wherein all the conditions set out in clause nos. 1 to 10 of the said settlement agreement were made a part of the decree.

2.3.  He states that the Respondent herein has remained in uninterrupted possession of the subject property and is enjoying the possession in pursuance to the settlement agreement and the decree of the Trial Court.

2.4.  He states that since no payments were made by the Respondent in terms of the settlement agreement, the Appellant filed the execution petition. He states that the Appellant herein continues to remain ready and willing to perform her obligations as set out at clause nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the settlement agreement.

2.5.  He states that since, the Respondent has failed to remit the payment of Rs.18 lakhs to be paid in five (5) instalments as set out in clause no. `2' of the settlement agreement, he is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the defaulted amount as set out in clause no. `6' of the said settlement agreement.

2.6.  He states that however, the Executing Court fell in error by dismissing the execution petition holding that there is no mechanism for enforcing the decree dated 15.10.2016. He states that the Respondent has unjustly benefitted as he continues to remain in occupation of the suit property in pursuance to the decree whereas, the Appellant herein has not received the consideration of Rs.18 lakhs which was promised to be paid to her in the year 2016-2017.

2.7.  He states that the Executing Court should have proceeded to sell the subject property to realise the payment of the amounts due and payable to the Appellant.

3.  In reply, the Respondent who appears in person and is a lawyer by profession states that he had offered to make the payments of the agreed upon amount to the Appellant on 03.09.2016 and 05.09.2016 by way of cheques. In this regard, he relies upon the proceedings recorded before the Executing Court on 06.09.2016. He fairly admits that the said cheques were not handed over to the Appellant and the money continues to remain with the Respondent.

3.1.  He states that therefore, the Respondent herein has continued to remain ready and willing to perform his part of the settlement agreement. He fairly admits that he is enjoying the possession of the subject property without making payment of Rs.18 lakhs to the Appellant till date.

3.2.  He states that he is willing to deposit the principal amount o