This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 15-6-60 by which he rejected the application filed by the appellants, judgment-debtors, under Section 47 C. P. C. praying that the execution case filed by the respondents should not be allowed to proceed, for the reason that the decree was not executable.

(2) The respondents obtained the decree on 8-1-59 in the High Court of Calcutta for Rs. 16,101/- against the appellants. It was a compro­mise decree and it provided that the decretal amount was to be paid by the appellants in six stated instalments specifying the amount of each instalment and 'the date of payment separately, all to be completed within a period of six months and in default of payment of two consecutive instalments, the entire balance of the decretal amount to be payable immediately with interest at 6 per cent annum. By way 6f security, the appellants agreed to charge certain immovable properties stated in the schedule in Agartala be­longing to the Directors of the appellants and the respondents were to register the decree with the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta at the expense of the appellants and on the payment of the decretal amount in full, the decree-holders were to execute the necessary documents releasing the properties-from the said charge. The compromise was record­ed and a decree in accordance therewith was passed.

(3) The appellants appear to have paid two instalments in time and then defaulted. Thereupon the respondents took out execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tripura on 3-8-1959, after getting the decree transferred to that Court and first prayed for the attachment of the charged properties and an order of attachment was made by the Court on 3-8-59. On 4-8-59, the appellants appeared before Court and stated that they will file an objection under Section 47 C. P. C. There­upon the Court passed an order that the execution petition was defective, as it prayed for attachment of the property in question and as it was seen from the decree that the properties have already been secured and so the question of attachment did no1 arise and the decree-holders were allowed to amend the execution petition. Time was also given to the appellants to file their objections.

(4) Subsequently, the decree-holders applied for amendment and the amendment was allowed on 10-9-59. Then the appellants filed the present objection stating that the charge referred to in the decree was not registered and that the charge can­not be enforced without a separate suit. But the decree-holders produced the registered copy of the decree which showed that it had been registered on 25-8-59, which was after the filing of the execu­tion petition on 3-8-59. The decree-holders con­tended that in view of the charge created by the compromise decree, it was not necessary to file a fresh suit to enforce the said charge and the pro­perty can be sold in the executing court. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the conten­tion of the respondents and dismissed the objection raised under Section 47 C. P. C. by the appellants.

(5) My attention was drawn by the appellants to the provisions of Section 67 and Section 100 T. P. Act and Or. XXXIV, Rules 14 and 15 C. P. C. and it was argued that the charge even though made by a compromise decree cannot be enforced in execution of the said decree, as there was no direction in the decree that the said property should be sold in execution of the said decree, that the only way in which the charge could be enforced was by a separate suit to enforce the charge and that a transferee court to which the decree has been sent for execution cannot order the sale of the pro­perty in execution of the money decree. The ap­pellants relied on the decision "Mt. Mongi v. Mahabir Pershad", AIR 1951 Punj. 132.

The learned Subordinate Judge had also consi­dered the said decision which was cited before him. It has been stated in the said decision that an exe­cuting court has to carry out the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document