NARASARAM Vs. S B NAGARATHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Executing Court issuing arrest warrant for non -payment of the decreetal amount.

(2.) THE respondent instituted O.S.No.50/2011 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03.12.2009 and for a direction to the petitioner herein to execute a registered sale deed in her favour by receiving the balance sale consideration. The total sale consideration agreed upon was Rs.41,50,001/ - and a sum of Rs.27,05,001/ - was paid by the plaintiff/respondent towards part satisfaction of the sale agreement. The balance payable was Rs.14,45,000/ -. The suit came to be compromised on 08.04.2011, whereunder the petitioner undertook to pay in all a sum of Rs.37,00,000/ -. On the date of the agreement, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.7,00,001/ - to the respondent in the form of cash and he undertook to pay the said sum of Rs.30,00,000/ - in five equal monthly instalments of Rs.6,00,000/ - each. He undertook to pay the same on or before 5th day of every month commencing from 05.05.2011.

(3.) IF that is so, that contention was not taken before the Court before recording the compromise petition. The compromise petition is duly signed by the petitioner and his counsel. They consented for a decree being passed in terms of the compromise petition, which included that clause, which is in the handwriting. In terms of the compromise, two instalments of Rs.7,00,000/ - was also paid. When the balance amount was not paid, the present execution petition is filed. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, post -dated cheques were issued towards the satisfaction of the decreetal amount, which also came to be dis -honoured. It is in those circumstances, the Court had no option except to accede to the request of the respondent for issue of arrest warrant for arrest of the petitioner, for not obeying the terms of the compromise decree. It is that order, which is challenged herein.