ORDER

This petition by the judgment debtor in Execution No.51/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed on I.A.No.6 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapur, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner – judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 89 r/w Section 151 CPC requesting the Executing Court to set aside the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2023 and to direct the respondent – decree holder to draw the amount deposited by the petitioner – Judgment debtor before the Executing Court was dismissed by the Executing Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents – decree holders has instituted the aforesaid executing proceedings to enforce and implement the Compromise decree dated 21.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.28/2013 by the Trial Court.

4. In this context, it is relevant to state that as per the terms and conditions of the Compromise decree, petitioner – judgment debtor was liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,21,000/- back to the respondents – decree holders within a period of three months from 21.03.2017. The Compromise Decree also contemplates that in the event petitioner do not pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,21,000/- back to the respondents – decree holders, the respondents – decree holders would be entitled to get the Compromise decree executed by enforcing the Sale Agreement and getting the Sale Deed registered through Court.

5. Respondents – decree holders instituted the aforesaid execution proceedings on 12.12.2017, after expiry of a period of three months interalia contending that the petitioner – judgment debtor had not repaid – refunded the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,21,000/- back to respondents – decree holders, who were accordingly entitled to execute the decree by directing the petitioner – judgment debtor to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondents – decree holders. During pendency of the said execution proceedings, the Executing Court executed a Court Sale Deed dated 15.07.2023 in favour of the respondents – decree holders through the Court. Meanwhile, petitioner – judgment debtor deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,21,000/- in four installments as stated under:

(i) Rs.6,00,000/- on 28.03.2023 (ii) Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.05.2023 (iii) Rs.2,21,000/- on 24.06.2023 (iv) Rs.1,00,000/- on 14.07.2023

6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner – judgment debtor filed an application seeking setting aside the Sale Deed by invoking Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. In the first instance, an order dated 01.12.2023 having been passed by the Executing Court, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1399/2024, which was allowed vide order dated 19.01.2024 and matter remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.6 afresh in accordance with law. After remand, the Executing Court heard both parties and dismissed the application – I.A.No.6 by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

7. A perusal of the undisputed material on record will indicate that as per the Compromise decree, the petitioner had undertaken and was bound to deposit a sum of Rs.12,21,000/- within a period of three months from 21.03.2017. It is an undisputed fact that the first installment of Rs.6 lakhs was deposited by the petitioner only on 28.03.2023 i.e., almost after about 6 years from the date of undertaking given under the Compromise decree. It is also significant to note that respondents – decree holders instituted the execution proceedings as long back as on 12.12.2017 and having entered appearance, the petitioner filed objections as long back as on 10.03.2020. It is therefore clear that even after filing objections as long back as on 10.03.2020, petitioner chose to deposit only a sum of Rs.6 lakhs that to on 28.03.2023. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.6 file