1999 Supreme(MP) 978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.K. MATHUR, J.
Maganlal - Applicant
Vs.
Rameshchand - Respondents
Civil Revn. No. 1368 of 1997(G)
Decided On : 20-09-1999

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 23 R. 3 – compromise decree providing two alternatives – one satisfied – another cannot be compelled to be satisfied.

        Short Note

       1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned First Civil Judge. Class II, Ashoknagar, dated 11 September, 1997 in Case No. 20A/68 whereby the learned Judge in the execution proceedings has found that the judgment and decree passed by this Court on compromise has been properly executed.

       2. Brief facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that a suit was filed by Magan Lal and rest for declaration and injunction against Rameshchand and others, which was decreed by the two Courts below and that matter reached to this Court and in this Court, parties entered into a compromise and by virtue of compromise it was decreed that septic tank will be constructed by Rameshchand and other defendants for the plaintiff Maganlal at their costs and Maganlal will not obstruct Rameshchand for taking the permission of Municipal Council and he will cooperate with them. In alternative, in event of failure, it was agreed that the septic tank will be constructed at the present place of latrine. on the ground floor and pipe – lines will be constructed with this tank and further separate pipe lines for the discharge of the water from the bathroom and chowk by 4” pipe will be connected with the municipal lane and both the lines will be separate.

       3. The learned trial Court found that first part of the order has been complied with, therefore, second part of the order need not be complied with. Aggrieved against this order present Revision Petition has been filed.

       4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is true that respondents have constructed the septic tank, but they have not connected it with the pipe – lines, therefore, they be directed to connect this septic tank with latrine. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that they were supposed to have constructed the septic tank and there was no obligation to connect latrine with the pipe – lines.

       5. I have gone through the terms and conditions of compromise and the order passed by the trial Court. A reading of the compromise shows that two alternatives were placed and in event of failure of first part, second alternative will be resorted to. In the present case, first condition has been complied with i.e. septic tank has been constructed and there was no obligation to connect it by pipe – line with latrine, therefore, second alternative need not be required to be complied with. In this view of the matter, the approach of trial Court is correct and I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

       6. However, Rameshchand and others shall fully cooperate with the petitioner in the construction of the pipe line to connect the septic tank with latrine.