The court emphasized that parties must adhere strictly to the terms of a Compromise/Settlement Agreement in execution matters, especially concerning construction compliance and potential penalties.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM (M) 8/2021, CM APPLN. 278/2021 (by the petitioner u/S 151 CPC for stay)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

" a) Allow the present Petition and set aside the order dated 05.09.2020 passed by the Court of Shri Sanjay Sharma-II, Additional District Judge-05 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 1352 of 2018 titled as Shrichand Bijlani versus BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited;

b) Pass any other such order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The brief facts as are relevant for the disposal of this petition are as follows. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profit and damages against the respondent by claiming to be the sole and absolute owner of the built-up property No.C-11 Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, admeasuring 200 square yards. The respondent had opposed the suit on the ground that he in his own right was the owner of the suit property. At the stage of final arguments, the suit, which was filed in 2016, was settled and the parties entered into a compromise, the broad contours of which the court recorded on 10th November, 2017. On the basis of the said compromise broadly recorded on 10th November, 2017, both the parties moved an application before the learned Trial Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC", for short) recording in detail the terms and conditions of the Compromise/Settlement Agreement (Annexure B). The learned Trial Court disposed of the suit in terms of the said Compromise/Settlement Agreement on 23rd December, 2017.

3. Subsequent to certain events, the respondent filed an Execution Petition bearing No.1352/2018. The respondent prayed that directions be issued to the petitioner to carry out the construction in strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Compromise/Settlement Agreement on the basis of which the suit was decreed on 23rd December, 2017. The impugned order dated 5th September, 2020 while disposing of objections filed under Section 47 CPC by the petitioner, has directed it to carry out the necessary repairs/modifications within three months from the date of the order. It also declined to vacate the interim order dated 19th December, 2018 whereby the petitioner has been restrained from creating third party rights or interests of any nature whatsoever in the first floor and basement of the suit property. The present petition has been filed assailing this order on various grounds.

4. It may be noticed here that in the course of hearing of this Execution Petition, the learned Executing Court appointed Shri Ajay Goshwami, Advocate as Local Commissioner on 31st October, 2018. The Local Commissioner inspected the premises on 5th November, 2018 and submitted his report dated 17th November, 2018. The petitioner filed objections under Section 47 CPC to the said report on 17th December, 2018. Despite the objections filed by the petitioner, the learned Executing Court took the report of the learned Local Commissioner, Shri Ajay Goshwami as filed on 30th November, 2018 in order to facilitate the settlement between the parties. On 19th December, 2018, the learned Executing Court directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit property till further orders.

5. According to the petitioner, it carried out several changes