Date of Judgement:
3rd March 2022.
Bench:
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Parties:
Appellant: Shri. Delican Shadap & Anr.
Respondent: Smti. Dal Nongtri & Anr.
Subject
The Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya has held that the concerned plaintiff may proceed to apply U/s 151 r/w Order XX Rule 6A, where no formal decree was passed by the court to draw its effect but where the suit was instituted by the petitioner was decided formally by the Hon’ble Lower Court.
Legal Provisions
- Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure – states that 'nothing in the CPC shall be construed to impede or otherwise influence the Court's inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary for the objectives of justice or to limit abuse of the Court's process.
- Order 20 Rule 6A of Code of Civil Procedure – states that every effort shall be made by the court to ensure the decree is drawn as soon as possible within 15 days from the date on which the judgment is given, and If an appeal is brought against the decree without filing a copy of the decree, the copy made available to the party by the court is treated as the decree for Rule 1 of Order XLI.
- Order 23 Rule 3 CPC of Code of Civil Procedure – states that to avoid many lawsuits and allow parties to reach an amicable settlement that is legal, in writing, and a voluntary act on the side of the parties The court can play a role in achieving an agreed-upon agreement and giving it finality.
Overview
- The Hon’ble High Court was entertaining a petition filed U/Art. 227 of the Constitution. The aggrieved appellant pleaded to set aside the order dated 18/02/2020, which had been passed by the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner.
- The appellant instituted a ‘Title Suit’ before the court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, which subsequently resulted in a mutual compromise between both the parties, following which a ‘Compromise Petition’ was filed dated 07/06/2016 before the Lower Court. Resultantly the whole suit was dismissed with due procedure.
- However, the respondents did not comply with the terms of the agreement following which the appellants approached the Lower Court for the execution of the ‘agreement’ of compromise
- The learned Lower court appointed a mediator to conduct a local inspection of the disputed land. However, the respondents filed an objection and the Courtaccepted the objection and disposed of the suit, by holding that no decree was in force for the compromise agreement dated 04/07/2016.
- The petitioners, being aggrieved by the decision, filed objections before the High Court.
- After subsequent notices were sent to the respondents to appear before the court for the initiation of the proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court decided to proceed ‘ex-parte’ against the respondents and simultaneously ordered the lower court to present its record findings.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the parties arrived at an amicable settlement to settle the titlesuit once and for all, and a Compromise Agreement was drawn by the parties and subsequently was presented before the Learned Lower Court, to which the parties hoped for a mutual settlement of the matter.
- Upon due perusal by the learned lower court of the submissions and mutual agreement, the court duly disposed of the suit by allowing and accepting the settlement arrived by both the parties on order dated 04/07/2016, but after that, no formal decree was drawn up by the learned lower court.
- Additionally, it was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ‘respondents’ were un-cooperative and were not fulfilling their part of the promise made in the aforesaid ‘agreement’ to which the petitioners appealed under Order 21 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the execution of the terms of the ‘compromise agreement’ on 08/03/2019.
- Upon consideration of the above-mentioned application the learned court appointed a mediator, Smti. M. Gatphoh to carry out local inspection regarding the non-compliance by the respondent. After the reports were submitted via the Bench Assistant on 19/08/2019, it indicated that the Respondents were indeed not co-operating with the terms of the ‘compromise agreement’.
- The learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the ‘compromise agreement’ was mutually signed by both the parties and after receiving due affirmations and seal of the court, the terms mentioned, thereof would be considered as a decree executable.
- To substantiate even further, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of S. Satnam Singh & Ors. V. Surendra Kaur & Anr. and submitted that to determine whether an order passed by the court of apt jurisdiction shall be considered as a decree or not, it has to satisfy the five tests laid down in the case and those tests were satisfied in the instant petition.
- He further proceeded to disaffirm the learned lower court’s judgment in entertaining the objections made by the respondents. The counsel pleaded that the ‘compromise agreement’ was singed mutually by both the parties and the learned court holding that there was no decree executed herewith was a misconstrued decision given by the learned lower court and is bad in law.
Issues
- Whether the rejection of application for execution filed under Order 21 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure was misconstrued judgment given by the learned lower court?
- what is the effect of not filing the copy of the decree along with the execution application filed by the appellant?
Judgment
- The Hon’ble High Court explained the Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of civil procedure and the difference between void and voidable agreement as per the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. The Court noted that Order 23 Rule 3 stipulates that where a Court records a compromise, it shall proceed to pass a formal decree, which the learned lower court failed to do in the present case and resultantly, the title suit was disposed of with no formal decree drawn up.
- The Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the case of Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. V. Shashi Mohan Kapur (Deceased), and stated that an execution application would be admissible even if submitted without a certified copy of the decree, and it enabled the Executing Court to entertain the execution case and decide the objections presented on merits.
- Subsequently the Hon’ble High Court observed that though the appellant didn’t file the certified copy of the decree along with the application of execution because the same was affirmed by the learned lower court, in as much the same is to be supposed maintainable, and the order dated 01/06/2017 shall be treated as a decree by the virtue of Order 20 Rule 6A (2) Of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The, emphasized on the facts that so long as the formal decree was not passed, the order recording the compromise agreement, as in the present case theorder dated 04/6/2016, shall be treated to have the same effect as that of a formal decree drawn up by the concerned court.
- Additionally, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court advised that the petitioner is required to apply U/s. 151 read with Order 20 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned lower court to draw a formal decree by the procedure.
- Thus, the Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated vide 18/02/2020 and rescinded the execution application. Further the Hon’ble Court ordered the learned lower court to deal with the matter expeditiously on the receipt U/s. 151 read with Order 20 Rule 6A of Code of Civil Procedure, thus allowing the revisions application.
Conclusion
In a case of ‘compromise agreement’, being mutually entered into by the parties to the title suit, both undersigned parties are required to co-operate with the clauses mentioned under the ‘agreement’ and in cases of non-compliance with the same where the order is passed by the court of apt jurisdiction, the same has to be submitted by the aggrieved party to the concerned court U/s. 151 read with Order 20 Rule 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure to draw a formal decree for further proceedings. But, the party has to also keep in mind that if the order passed by the concerned court satiates the key requirements laid down in the case of S. Satnam Singh, the same shall be considered as a formal decree, regardless of the formal decree drawn by the concerned court.
