RAJESH GUPTA Vs. NAMAN FINCAP LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 14-8-2001 sitting as an executing court, by which the court has declined to execute an order dated 15-12-1999 passed by the learned trial court simply for the reasons that the said order did not specifically contain a direction for the payment of Rs.50,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant No.l although this was one of the conditions of the compromise contained in the joint compromise application Ex.AW.l

(2.) The relevant facts to be noted for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner and defendant No.2, defendant No.2 was not represented at the trial and was proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff and defendant No.l, during the course of the trial, settled the subject matter of the suit and on 15-12-1999 filed a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, the terms of settlement having been fully detailed in Clauses (a) to (d) of para No. 2 of the said application. The learned trial court entertained the said application, recorded the joint statement of a certain Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Managing Director of the plaintiff company and Sh.Rajesh Gupta, defendant No.l who confirmed the said terms contained in the joint application. The application was marked as Ex.AW.l. for the purpose of identification and it was accepted by the court and the suit was ordered to be disposed of in terms of the compromise. However, in the ultimate paragraph of the order the trial court made certain observations and gave directions to defendant No.2 for the transfer of 300 shares in favour of the plaintiff on furnishing a fresh transfer deed but other terms of the said compromise more particularly that contained in Clause (c) of para 2 of the application, no specific direction or order was made on the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to defendant No.l on the transfer of the said shares in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently pursuant to the said compromise and the order of the learned trial court dated 15-12-1999, defendant No.l transferred the shares in favour of the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not make the payment of Rs.50,000.00 to defendant No.l within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of such transfer of the shares in terms of Clause (c) of the terms and hence defendant No.l filed an execution application for recovery of the said amount from the plaintiff. The application was opposed by the plaintiff primarily on the ground that there existed no decree or order against the plaintiff which was liable to be executed. On a narrow construction of the order of the learned trial court dated 15-12-1999, returned a finding that the execution filed by the defendant No.l was not maintainable for the simple reason that the learned trial court order dated 15-12-1999 did not contain any specific direction/order on the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000.00

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that once the parties had settled their dispute/subject matter of the suit through on certain terms which were duly reflected in the Joint application Ex.Aw.l which in turn was duly affirmed by the parties before the court and were accepted by the learned trial court there remained no ambiguity with regard to the judgment/decree which ought to have been passed pursuant to the said compromise. To support hie contention, he has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Hardit Singh Obra Vs. Daljit Singh ILR 1974 Delhi 571 where this court has considered the effect of not drawing up a decree on the disposal of a suit based on compromise and held as under:-