JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri in Title Execution Case No. 11/2009, whereby the petition filed by the Judgment debtor/revision petitioner (herein after referred to as petitioner), under Section 47 of CPC, challenging the executability of a compromise decree was rejected.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiff/ respondent (herein after referred to as the respondent) filed a suit being Title Suit No. 23/2008 and during the continuance of the suit, the petitioner and the respondent arrived at a settlement that the petitioner company would appoint the respondent as distributor of the petitioner company and the respondent would withdraw the suits. During the communication between the parties, a draft agreement was prepared either the word “sole” and the same was sent to the petitioner through their agent. The petitioner objected to use of the word “sole” and a revised draft was sent by e-mail, deleting the word “sole” and the revised draft did not contain either the word “sole” or exclusive.” However, in the final agreement of settlement filed before the Court for recording compromise decree, the word “exclusively” was inserted and due to oversight, the counsel for the petitioner did not notice the same and ultimately the compromise decree was recorded on 10.09.2008, on the basis of the said terms of agreement. For the sake of convenience, the terms of agreement which was made a part of the decree is reproduced below:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

(i) That, to compensate the loss suffered by the plaintiff for the above noted case it has been mutually decided and in pursuance of the letter dated 02.08.2008 issued by the Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd. the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 shall appoint the plaintiff along with his son named Abdul Khaleque Bepari, residence of village: North Raipur, Pt-I, P.S. Golakganj, District Dhubri (Assam) as a partner, as the distributor for the Dhubri Civil district by entering into business relations with him like Prepaid distributorship, Postpaid distributorship and VMS, etc. for the entire district of Dhubri Assam exclusively, by executing a formal agreement in that regard with him as and when the services of the company is launched in the Dhubri district.

(ii) That, the terms of the compromise shall be binding upon the parties.

(iii) That, none of the parties shall claim any cost and compensation in the present suit against opposite party.

3. After the consent decree was recorded, it came to the notice of the petitioner that though in course of previous communication, the word ‘exclusively’ or ‘sole’ was deleted, inadvertently or due to oversight, the word “exclusive” remained in the terms of agreement, which was in contravention of Sections 3 of the Competition Act, 2003. The respondent immediately filed a petition before the Court, recording the consent decree, for modification of the terms of settlement under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent put the decree in execution. The petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC challenging the executability of the decree and the learned Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the petition.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

5. The question arises in this revision petition is that whether a compromise or a consent decree recorded by the Court, in violation of any statutory provision is illegal and not enforceable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act submitted, that any anti-competitive agreement in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Competition Act shall be a void contract and therefore, the compromise decree recorded on the basis of such void contract cannot be enforced.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that the terms o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document