Advocates:
['SUMEET GADODIA', '', 'AKSHAY KR MAHATO', 'SHYAM SUNDER KUMAR', 'PREM PUJARI ROY', 'ABHIJEET TUSHAR', 'ALPHONS MARANDI', 'AYUSH ADITYA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Civil Revision No.43 of 2016

Rajendra Chaturvedi, son of Late Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi, resident

of 42B, Troika Apartment, 3^rd Cross Lane, Lokhandwala, P.O. Andheri

(West), P.S. Oshiwara, District-Mumbai-400053 (Maharashtra)

……

Petitioner

Versus

1.

Geeta Ojha, wife of late Anil Kumar Ojha

2.

Yash Ojha, son of late Anil Kumar Ojha

3.

Vishal Ojha, son of late Anil Kumar Ojha

All residents of 22, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-

Ranchi, at present residing at Bharat Minerals and Ceramics

Industries, Mahilong, Tatisilwai, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilwai, District-

Ranchi (Jharkhand)

…… Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate

Mr. Munna Kumar, Advocate

----------------------------

15

/ Dated : 9

^th August, 2018

1.

This revision is directed against the order dated 03.08.2016

passed by Sub Judge-VII, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No.121 of 2015 arising

out of Execution Case No.4 of 2012, rejecting the application filed

under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be

evident from the annexures (annexed in the present application) that

both the parties had entered into a compromise on the terms and

conditions enumerated, therein and incorporated Clause D and E as

under;

“D.

That both the parties have duly come in

possession of their respective schedule of land

E.

That now none of the parties have any claim or

concern with respect to the schedule of land allotted to the

other parties.”

It is argued that plain reading of the aforesaid clauses leaves no

room for doubt that both the parties came in possession of the portion

of land mentioned in the schedule of the land consequently nothing

remained to be done by the parties in satisfaction of the compromise

decree, therefore, the levying of execution was not maintainable. To

2

buttress his argument learned counsel has placed reliance on the

decision rendered in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vrs. Rajinder

Singh and Others; (2006) 5 SCC 566 and canvassed that the

Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has held that when there is

satisfaction of the claim then the compromise decree cannot be

enforced by levying of execution as there is no subsisting obligation to

be performed by the parties in pursuance to the decree. It is

contended that the court below has committed manifest error in not

appreciating the fact that as per the terms and conditions the parties

have admitted that they are in possession of the schedule land

consequently no obligation was left to be performed by either of the

parties.

It is contended that the executing court has exceeded its

jurisdiction in going behind the decree which is not tenable in law in

view of the obtaining facts of the case.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel, for the opposite party, has

canvassed that the ratio of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (supra) has been

considered and discussed in the impugned order. That the order is in

consonance with the settled proposition of law enunciated by the

Supreme Court. It is argued that in the case of Mahalaxmi

Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others Vrs.

Ashabhai Atmaram Patel and Others; (2013) 4 SCC 404, the

Supreme Court, in para 40, has referred to the decision rendered in

Pushpa Devi Bhagat (supra) and the provision of Rule 3 Order 23

have been analysed and exhaustively discussed. It has been observed

that Order 23 Rule 3 contains two parts; the first part refers to the

situation where an agreement or compromise is entered into in writing

and signed by the parties and the court being satisfied that the said

suit has been adjusted eithe