Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Sunil Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors. – Respondents
CMP(M) No. 610 of 2020 & Civil Revision No. 57 of 2020
Decided on : 03-05-2024
Compromise Decree - Civil Suit - Order 21 Rule 32, Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - The court discussed the compromise decree dated 22.06.2017 and the objections filed by the petitioner. The court also referred to the legal provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and their applicability in the execution of the compromise decree.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Judgment Debtor, sought to challenge the compromise decree dated 22.06.2017 and the subsequent execution petition. The court found that the objections filed by the petitioner were a challenge to the compromise decree, and the Executing Court did not have jurisdiction to go behind the compromise decree. The court dismissed the petitioner's objections and allowed the execution petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections filed by the petitioner were a challenge to the compromise decree, and the Executing Court did not have jurisdiction to go behind the compromise decree. The court dismissed the petitioner's objections and allowed the execution petition.
Issues: The main issue was the challenge to the compromise decree dated 22.06.2017 and the subsequent execution petition. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the Executing Court in relation to the compromise decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Executing Court did not have jurisdiction to go behind the compromise decree, and the objections filed by the petitioner were a challenge to the compromise decree. The court dismissed the petitioner's objections and allowed the execution petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's objections and allowed the execution petition. The petitioner was advised to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with the law for redressal of his grievances against the compromise decree dated 22.06.2017.
Petitioner was the Judgment Debtor before the learned Executing Court. On 03.08.2019, learned Executing Court allowed the execution petition moved by the Decree Holder, Sh. Rajneesh Khanna [(represented here by his legal heirs-respondents No. 3(a) to 3(c)] seeking enforcement of the compromise decree dated 22.06.2017 and dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioner. Based upon this order, certain other orders were passed on 09.12.2019 and 13.01.2020 in furtherance of enforcement of the compromise decree dated 22.06.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Judgment Debtor has instituted this revision petition, which is barred by limitation.
2. Facts:-
2(i) The petitioner had instituted a civil suit against his brother Sh. Rajneesh Khanna and two banks: - the Punjab National Bank & UCO Bank. The petitioner sought direction to the aforementioned banks to release him money from the bank accounts and further that his brother Sh. Rajneesh Khanna be directed not to interfere in the business being run at 4, Regent House, the Mall Shimla.
2(ii) Sh. Rajneesh Khanna’s defence in the civil suit was that the firm known as M/s Puran Chand & Satya Paul Khanna, previously consisted of three partners i.e. Sh. Rajneesh Khanna, Sh. Sunil Khanna and their late father Sh. Dharam Pal Khanna. The firm was dissolved after the death of Sh. Dharam Pal Khanna and a new partnership firm, consisting of Sh. Rajneesh Khanna and Sh.Sunil Khanna, came into existence. According to Sh. Rajneesh Khanna, the business being run at both the aforementioned places was that of partnership firm, whereas according to Sh.Sunil Khanna, the firm carried its business only at Sajjan Niwas, Anaj Mandi, Shimla and the business being run from the shop No.4, Regent House, The Mall Shimla, was his personal business. Owing to the dispute, Sh. Rajneesh Khanna directed both the banks to stop releasing money from the bank accounts of the firm to Sh. Sunil Khanna. Aggrieved against these directions, Sh. Sunil Khanna filed the civil suit referred to above.
2(iii) The civil suit was sent for mediation. A compromise was effected between the parties before the Mediator. The mediation proceedings were placed before the Court where statements of the parties were recorded. On that basis, the suit was disposed of in terms of a compromise decree dated 22.06.2017.
Statements of the parties recorded before the Court were to form part of the compromise decree. Sh. Rajneesh Khanna had stated before the Court that: -
i) The business being run in the name of firm at Anaj Mandi, Ram Bazar, Shimla and at 4, Regent House, The Mall Shimla, is a partnership business, in which Sh. Sunil Khanna and Sh. Rajneesh Khanna are the partners.
ii) Both the partners shall have no objection for releasing of an amount of Rs.10,000,00/- by the Punjab National Bank from the given account and the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- lying in the said account, will be deposited in the name of Sh. Sunil Khanna, who will not encash the same till the accounts of the firm are settled between them and till the dispute about the accounts of the firm is settled finally.
iii) On release of Rs.10,00,000/- and formation of FDR of Rs.7,00,000/-, Sh. Sunil Khanna shall immediately open the shop at 4, Regent House, The Mall Shimla. In case Sh. Sunil Khanna receives any amount from Aditya Birla and Adidas India against any claim, the same shall go only to Sh. Sunil Khanna.
iv) Both the brothers shall remain joint tenants of the shop at 4, Regent House, The Mall Shimla under the name of firm. The business of the firm shall continue at all the units with both partners having right to watch their interest and administration of business.
v) The shop will remain the business premises till the existence of the firm. In case of death of either of the partners, their legal heirs may continue the partnership frim.
vi) Both the partners will help smooth functioning of the firm and will not hamper the business in any manner.
The aforesaid statement mad
AI
The Executing Court does not have jurisdiction to go behind a compromise decree, and objections challenging the compromise decree should be addressed through appropriate legal proceedings.
Conditional compromise decrees require fulfillment of specific obligations for enforceability; failure to comply renders them unenforceable.
Limitation for executing compromise decrees begins upon breach of obligations, not from the decree date.
A compromise decree recognizing pre-existing tenancy rights does not require registration, upholding the right to execute it based on agreed terms under the Civil Procedure Code.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
