RANGARAJU Vs. R.R. DEVELOPERS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. K.R. Sreenivasa Patavardhan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER who is the Judgment Debtor in Execution No. 509/2014 is seeking for quashing of order dated 19.03.2015 Annexure -L whereunder Executing Court has allowed application filed by Decree Holder under Order 21 Rule 12 and 13 of CPC and flat bearing Nos. 206, 301, 402, 403, 306 situated at Industrial Site No. 37/B, Industrial Suburb, II Stage, Fort Mohalla, Mysuru South, Mysuru belonging to Judgment Debtor has been attached till realization of entire claim amount. 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against writ petitioner/defendant for specific enforcement of Joint Development Agreement dated 15.11.2007 entered into between them and also sought for recovery of certain amounts and to declare that gift deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant dated 13.06.2013 and gift deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant as well as sale deed dated 25.06.2013 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 5th defendant are not binding on the plaintiff. Subsequently parties have entered into compromise petition and accordingly compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC was filed whereunder terms agreed to between the parties came to be indicated and pursuant to the same decree came to be passed. Plaintiff alleging that terms of compromise decree is not adhered to and also conditions agreed to by defendant initiated execution proceedings in Ex. No. 509/2014. Perusal of Execution petition which is at Annexure -G would indicate that decree holder/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,33,594/ - under various heads. Judgment Debtor on service of notice filed detailed statement of objections contending inter alia that terms agreed to under compromise petition was not strictly adhered to by decree holder himself and as such he is not entitled to decreetal amount or the amount claimed in the execution petition. In this background decree holder filed an application for attaching the properties and flats allotted to Judgment Debtor under the compromise petition by invoking Order XXI Rule 13 of CPC. Said application was resisted by Judgment Debtor and after considering rival contentions Executing Court allowed the application and ordered for attachment of properties indicated in the impugned order. Hence, present writ petition.

(3.) RIVAL contentions raised by learned advocates in these proceedings relates to terms of compromise petition not being adhered to by each of them. Judgment debtor contends that decree holder would not be entitled to payment of Rs. 52,00,000/ - which amount is in deposit and same is seriously disputed by counsel for decree holder namely 1st respondent herein. This court sitting in writ jurisdiction exercising supervisory jurisdiction would not be in a position to examine the disputed question of fact. Undisputedly as per the terms set out in the compromise petition 1st defendant i.e., Judgment Debtor namely writ petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 91,22,300/ - out of which Rs. 40,00,000/ - had already been paid and balance of Rs. 52,00,000/ - has been deposited before Executing Court on 08.10.2015. In view of parties being ad idem with regard to payment of said amount it does not lie in the mouth of Judgment Debtor to contend that said amount is not liable to be disbursed in favour of decree holder. Said contention stands rejected.