(1.) This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2014, passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Durg in Execution Case No.5-A/2003 by dismissing the application for execution on the ground of its executability.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by passing the impugned order, the Court has gone behind the decree, which is not permissible under law. It is submitted that the petitioners had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents, which was disputed by the respondents in their written statement. Later on, on the basis of compromise between the parties, a compromise decree was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 14.08.2005. According to the terms of agreement, subject matter of suit was under procedure of transfer from defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 and that as soon as the transfer/mutation is completed, the suit property will be transferred to the plaintiff/petitioners by the registered sale deed by the defendant No.3, who is respondent No.3 in this petition.
(3.) After the execution case was filed, the respondent No.1 filed replied vide Annexure P-8 submitting that compromise dated 14.05.2005 has taken place only between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, on the basis of which, the award is passed. The mention of appearance of the counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 and his statement that transfer/mutation Page No.3 of the property under procedure is a false statement and the compromise application does not bear the signature of the respondent No.1 and also that property of the trust was registered in Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, therefore, any transfer of the property could not be made without the sanction as required under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. Disputing the entitlement of respondent No.3 for entering into a compromise, it was prayed that compromise decree dated 14.08.2005 is fraudulent, therefore, the execution be dismissed.