Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Dhirendra Pal Solanki & Others – Revisionist
Versus
M/S 44, Noida Infratech (Two) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL REVISION No. 68, 69, 70, 71 of 2019
Decided On : 15-07-2019
Section 47 C.P.C. - Execution of Conciliation Agreements - 2017 Volume 5 SCC page 371 - The court discussed the maintainability of execution cases under Section 47 C.P.C. and the requirement of filing a decree for execution. It also considered the validity of conciliation agreements and their enforceability, as well as the jurisdiction of the Executing Court in granting certain reliefs.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered objections under Section 47 C.P.C. in four execution cases related to conciliation agreements and a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The revisionist argued that the judgment was no longer executable due to a subsequent agreement superseding it, and that the execution cases were not maintainable due to various reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of a decree for execution rendered the execution cases not maintainable. It also emphasized the need for a decree to be executed by the Executing Court and remitted the matters back for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of execution cases under Section 47 C.P.C., the requirement of a decree for execution, and the validity and enforceability of conciliation agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a decree, not a judgment, is executable, and the absence of a decree renders execution cases not maintainable. It also emphasized the need for the Executing Court to examine the availability of the decree for further proceedings.
Final Decision: All four revisions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law and the court's observations.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Manish Goyal for the revisionist in these four revisions and Shri Anurag Khanna, assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran for the opposite party in each of these revisions.
2. In all these four revisions, objections under Section 47 C.P.C. have been rejected by the Executing Court.
3. The contesting opposite party filed Execution Case No. 504/2015 for execution of a conciliation agreement entered between the parties on 12.09.2014 and Execution Case No. 66/2016 for execution of a conciliation agreement dated 12.09.2014. Another Execution Case No. 117/2016 was filed by the opposite party for execution of a judgment dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Delhi High Court on the basis of memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014 Original Suit No. 194/2014. In these execution cases, objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code were filed by the Directors of M/s Sanwariya Gas and by M/s Sanwariya Gas itself.
4. As noticed above, all these objections under Section 47 C.P.C. have been rejected by the executing court. All the orders are dated 23.03.2019. One order has been passed rejecting the objection under Section 47 filed in Execution Case No. 66/2017 while the other order rejects the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. filed in Execution Case No. 117/2016.
5. Civil Revision Nos. 69 and 70 of 2019 are directed against the order passed on the objections under Section 47 C.P.C. which were filed in Execution Case No. 66/2016 while Revision Nos. 68 and 71 pertain to the orders passed in Execution Case No. 117/2016.
6. Since identical issues are involved in these two sets of revisions the same have been heard and are being decided together by a common order.
7. The submission of Shri Manish Goyal assisted by Shri Nikhil Mishra on behalf of the revisionists is that the opposite party M/S 44, Noida Infratech (Two) Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for specific performance of a memorandum of understanding dated 17.10.2012. During the pendency of the suit a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 13.08.2014. On this MOU dated 13.08.2014 being filed in court the suit was disposed of in its terms vide order dated 27.08.2014.
8. It is submitted that in accordance with a clause contained in this memorandum of understanding, specially paragraph no. 7, this memorandum of understanding which forms part of the judgment dated 27.08.2014 was modifiable with the consent of the parties. Subsequently, another memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 12.09.2014 before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court. This subsequent agreement dated 12.09.2014, in fact, superseded the memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014, which formed part of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2014 and was modifiable with the consent of the parties.
9. Subsequently, another memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 12.09.2014, before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court. This subsequent agreement dated 12.09.2014, in fact, superseded the memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014 which forms part of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2014.
10. His contention, therefore, is that the judgment dated 27.08.2014, since it stood superseded by the memorandum of understanding dated 12.09.2014, the same was no longer executable. Therefore, Execution Case No. 117/2016 was not maintainable.
11. He has further contended that only the conciliation agreement dated 12.09.2014 was executable but there was no breach of the conditions agreed therein and this fact alone renders even Execution Case No. 66/2017, not maintainable.
12. It appears that both the Execution Cases were initially filed before the Delhi High Court but were transferred to Bulandshahr, vide order dated 29.08.2016.
13. The second objection of Shri Manish Goyal is that both the Execution Cases were not maintainable also because copy of the decree was never filed be
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
