IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 580 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-

================================================================

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	NO
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	YES
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

================================================================

SWATI LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD Versus VRAJLAL TAPUBHAI LODHIA ================================================================

Appearance:

MR UNMESH SHUKLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 2,2.3 MR MEHUL S SHAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HENIL M SHAH(10677) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 09/11/2022 CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Revision application filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) emanates from the order dated 25.04.2019 passed below Exh.10 in Special Execution Application No.154 of 2001 by 8^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot.

FACTS

2. Special Civil Suit No.303 of 2002 was instituted by the applicant- Company that the defendant No.1 (present respondent no.1) Shri Vrajlal Tapubhai Lodhia and defendant no.2-Smt.Chandrikaben Vrajlal Lodhia (now represented through her legal heirs as respondent no.2) claiming a decree of Rs.7,21,18,013/- with 20% interest on the ground that they have siphoned the aforesaid amount. Vajubhai Jwellers and Chandraprabha Builders were arraigned as party defendants nos.3 and 4, who are not the party respondents in the present revision application.

2.1 The said suit was decided and disposed of on 11.09.2000 on the consent terms and accordingly a decree was drawn in view of the consent terms.

2.2 The defendant No.1 and 2 filed Execution Application No.154 of 2001 in the Court of 8^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, wherein the plaintiff filed written objections at Exh.20 as well as an application filed by the applicant at Exh.40 dated 24.12.2001 and also has filed an application vide Exh.10 contending that the execution application is not maintainable in relation to the amount of Rs.3,03,45,000/- claimed by the original defendant against the plaintiff.

2.3 By the impugned order dated 25.04.2019, the learned Court below has rejected the application below Exh.10, which has given rise to the present application.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Unmesh Shukla with learned Advocate Mr.Sharvil Majmudar has submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application of the applicant filed below Exh.10 questioning the maintainability of the execution proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside since the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 11.09.2000, on which the execution proceeding is premised, is not signed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No.303 of 2000, hence, the said MoU cannot be executed, in the execution application. It is submitted that the said MoU does not reflect the name of any mediator, in presence of whom the accounts are said to have been settled outside the Court as mentioned in the consent decree. It is contended that the executing court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree and hence, the terms of the MoU cannot be enforced. Reliance is placed by him on the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Rameshwar Dass Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (1996) 5 S.C.C. 728, Bhagwat Sharan vs. Purushottam and Anr., (2020) 6 S.C.C. 387 and in the case of Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School, Arya Samaj Mandir, Jhajjar vs. Rajwanti (Smt) and Ors., (2007) 5 S.C.C. 97.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shukla has submitted that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document