A compromise decree is executable once the triggering event (receipt of funds) occurs; if the funds received already exceed the amount due under the decree, the execution cannot be deemed premature simply because the total compensation is not yet fully received.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 9.9.2025 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, District Amreli in Execution Application No.18 of 2023.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Modi for learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr.Shivam Dixit as well as learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni for the concerned respondent/s. Perused the record. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

4. The petitioners had filed Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2017 before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, challenging the Sale Deed dated 20.7.2010 in respect of ancestral land bearing Survey No.135/1 Paiki-1. During pendency of the suit, the land came to be acquired for National Highway purposes and compensation was determined. Since the land stood in the name of respondent No.1, the compensation was payable to him. The parties, thereafter, amicably settled the dispute and a Compromise Decree dated 25.04.2023 came to be passed. Under the compromise, respondent No.1 agreed to pay Rs.1,31,50,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of application till realization to the petitioners. The decree recorded that compensation received from the Authority would first be deposited in the account respondent No.1, and thereafter, he would pay to the petitioners. respondent No.1 admittedly received substantial compensation, including amounts aggregating to approximately Rs.22.91 crores in 2023, but failed to pay the decreetal amount. The petitioners filed Execution Application No. 18 of 2023 seeking enforcement of the decree. The learned Executing Court, by order dated 9.9.2025, rejected the execution application considering it as “premature,” holding that full compensation had not yet been received and the decree was conditional. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that a compromise decree has the force of a contract with the seal of the Court and is fully executable like any other decree. The learned Executing Court could not go behind the decree or dilute its effect. Respondent No.1 has admittedly received compensation. Once sufÏcient funds are received, the obligation to pay crystallizes and becomes immediately enforceable. The Respondent’s failure to pay despite receipt of compensation cannot be used to defeat execution. The learned Executing Court erred in interpreting the decree as conditional and refusing execution. The liability to pay arose upon receipt of compensation, which has already occurred. Even otherwise, the decree does not require receipt of entire compensation before payment. No other submissions are made except the above.

6. Learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the Compromise Decree dated 25.04.2023 clearly incorporates a condition precedent, namely that the entire compensation amount (principal + interest) must first be deposited in the Bank account of respondent No.1. It is also submitted that only upon occurrence of this event the obligation to pay the petitioners arise. Until such condition is fulfilled, the decree does not become executable. It is a settled principle that learned Executing Court must execute the decree strictly in terms of its language and cannot modify or reinterpret it. The admitted position is that the entire compensation amount has not yet been received from the Land Acquisition Authority. The decree specifically contemplates receipt of the entire compensation amount, not partial payments. Therefore, the triggering event for payment has not yet occurred. In absence of fulfillment of the condition precedent, no enforceable obligation has arisen. Consequently, the Execution Application was premature, a