The MoU forms an integral part of the consent decree and cannot be treated as separate. The execution petition seeking execution of the consent decree cannot be declared as non-maintainable and non-executable.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Civil Revision application filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) emanates from the order dated 25.04.2019 passed below Exh.10 in Special Execution Application No.154 of 2001 by 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot.

FACTS:

2. Special Civil Suit No.303 of 2002 was instituted by the applicant-Company that the defendant No.1 (present respondent no.1) Shri Vrajlal Tapubhai Lodhia and defendant no.2-Smt.Chandrikaben Vrajlal Lodhia (now represented through her legal heirs as respondent no.2) claiming a decree of Rs.7,21,18,013/- with 20% interest on the ground that they have siphoned the aforesaid amount. Vajubhai Jwellers and Chandraprabha Builders were arraigned as party defendants nos.3 and 4, who are not the party respondents in the present revision application.

2.1 The said suit was decided and disposed of on 11.09.2000 on the consent terms and accordingly a decree was drawn in view of the consent terms.

2.2 The defendant No.1 and 2 filed Execution Application No.154 of 2001 in the Court of 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, wherein the plaintiff filed written objections at Exh.20 as well as an application filed by the applicant at Exh.40 dated 24.12.2001 and also has filed an application vide Exh.10 contending that the execution application is not maintainable in relation to the amount of Rs.3,03,45,000/- claimed by the original defendant against the plaintiff.

2.3 By the impugned order dated 25.04.2019, the learned Court below has rejected the application below Exh.10, which has given rise to the present application.

SUBMISSIONS:

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unmesh Shukla with learned Advocate Mr.Sharvil Majmudar has submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application of the applicant filed below Exh.10 questioning the maintainability of the execution proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside since the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 11.09.2000, on which the execution proceeding is premised, is not signed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No.303 of 2000, hence, the said MoU cannot be executed, in the execution application. It is submitted that the said MoU does not reflect the name of any mediator, in presence of whom the accounts are said to have been settled outside the Court as mentioned in the consent decree. It is contended that the executing court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree and hence, the terms of the MoU cannot be enforced. Reliance is placed by him on the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Rameshwar Dass Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (1996) 5 S.C.C. 728, Bhagwat Sharan vs. Purushottam and Anr., (2020) 6 S.C.C. 387 and in the case of Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School, Arya Samaj Mandir, Jhajjar vs. Rajwanti (Smt) and Ors., (2007) 5 S.C.C. 97.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shukla has submitted that the MoU dated 11.09.2000, which is said to have been executed outside the Court, by one Shri Gopal K. Patel is shown as one of the parties, who has said to have undertaken to pay the amount as alleged therein in his personal capacity as well as in the capacity of director of the plaintiff-Company, however Shri Gopal K. Patel was not the party in the said civil suit in his personal capacity and, therefore, no decree can be said to have been passed against Gopal K. Patel and as such the execution application is not maintainable and further, the director can also not be made liable for any payment. Thus, it is submitted that the present revision application may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

3.2 In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference since the same is precisely passed by the court below rejecting the application filed by the applicant-original respondent below Exh.10. He has invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the application at Exh.10 and has submitted