JUDGMENT :

1. Setting-aside of Order dated 20th February 2020, passed by the court of Sub-Judge (CJM) Sopore (for brevity "Trial Court”) in an Execution Petition titled Firm Gopi Chand, Prem Kumar v. Tariq Ahmad Rather, directing detaining of petitioner in civil prison for a period of one month in execution of the decree, is implored for on the grounds mentioned in Revision Petition on hand.

1.1. It is averred in the Revision Petition on hand that in a Suit for Rendition of Accounts, a decree for payment of Rs. 1,55,84,233.30 was passed on 17th July 2019 by Trial Court in favour defendant - respondent herein

1.2. It is maintained that application for execution of decree having been filed by respondent before Trial Court did not satisfy requirements of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP).

1.3. Learned Trial Court is stated to have not appreciated any satisfaction that application for execution was incompetent and that no inquiry as required under Rule 40 of Order 21 CPC was held by Trial Court.

1.4. It is asserted that Trial Court did not issue any show cause notice to petitioner enabling him to explicate as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. Petitioner was got arrested by Trial Court on 14th February 2020 consequence to issuance of warrant of arrest which was issued merely because on 3rd February 2020, both petitioner and his counsel were absent in the proceedings though he had already caused his appearance before Trial Court on previous dates of hearing, i.e. 26th December 2019 and 30th December 2019. Trial Court, taking up the matter on 15th February 2020 and 18th February 2020, while petitioner was under arrest, did not hold any inquiry or receive any evidence in support of application for execution and also did not give petitioner an opportunity to show cause against detention in civil prison.

1.5. It is avowed that petitioner has not failed to satisfy the stipulation of the decree in that the decree provided payment of decretal amount in four years from the date of compromise deed, which according to respondent was entered into on 22nd January 2018.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner impugned order passed in Execution Petition is in contradiction to provisions of Section 51 read with Rule 11-A and 37 CPC, besides provisions of Rule 40 of Order XXI CPC.

4. Per contra, Mr. N.H. Shah, learned counsel for respondent, has insisted that revision petition is not maintainable against order impugned and is liable to be dismissed. He has produced copies of certain order passed by Trial Court, which are taken on record.

4.1. A submission, made by learned counsel for respondent during course of advancement of arguments that judgement cited by Trial Court rendered in the case of M/s Pushpa Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. M/s Gangotri Sahakari Avas S. Ltd. and others, AIR 2012 SC 1788, while passing impugned order, has significance and bearing on instant matter inasmuch as it has been observed therein that execution petition can be filed before expiry of time stipulated in compromise decree for judgement debtor to honour his obligation, though initially looks convincing yet it pales into significance owing to the discussion and reasons ingeminated hereafter, more particularly when in Pushpa Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. (supra), the order in execution petition was passed, the decree had become mature for execution and therefore, facts in aforesaid case are distinguishable from the case in hand.

5. While going through the file, it comes to fore that civil suit titled Tariq Ahmad Rather v. Firm Gopi Chand Prem Chand, had been filed before Trial Court on 31st December 2015. Pursuant to compromise entered into between parties, the suit of petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 22nd January 2018, against which revision petition, being CR No. 14/2018 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 22nd May 2019, setting-aside ju