SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9879

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ
SUDHA DEVI @ SUDHA VERMA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
SEEMA JAISWAL & ANR. – Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28196/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Adv., Mr. Sneh Vardhan, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Madhurendra Sharma, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra, Adv., Mr. Neeraj Dwivedi, Adv., Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, AOR

The Executing Court is responsible for determining compliance with a compromise decree, especially regarding offers made in execution cases.

Headnote:The court analyzed the petition for Special Leave to Appeal regarding an execution case linked to a compromise decree. It found that the petitioners offered a resolution aligned with the compromise; however, the respondents contested it. The court ruled that these matters must be determined by the Executing Court, instructing that the court should decide within six months whether the petitioners' offer conforms to the decree. The Special Leave Petition was thereby disposed of without further interference.

Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

We have heard the learned Senior counsel Signature Not Verified appearing for the petitioners and the learned Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2025.10.18

13:03:33 IST counsel appearing for the respondents.

Reason:

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

However, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the following paragraph of the show cause filed by the original plaintiff in Execution Case:

“(X) As proposed the new market complex has been completed in all respect and all commercial shops and spaces have been leased out except one shop, which the Def No.-1 kept reserved for the Plaintiffs/D.H.(s) & requested them to occupy the same in furtherance of the agreement to lease entered into by & between both the parties in the shape of the compromise petition but the D.H. No.-2 refused the same due to which it is still vacant causing recurring loss to the J.D., which up till now has accumulated to the time of rupees 10 lakhs for which the Plaintiffs. Dhs are solely liable to compensate.”

Based upon the aforessaid paragraph, it is submitted that the petitioners are willing to offer the same which is in tune with the compromise decree. However, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the said offer is not in tune with the decree passed inter se the parties.

We are not willing to go into the said issue as it is for the Executing Court to consider the same.

Accordingly, with the above observations made, the Executing Court can consider the offer made by the petitioners and the give a finding as to whether the same is in conformity with the compromise decree.

The aforesaid order will have to be passed by the Executing Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of, accordingly Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top