KISHAN CHAND TUTEJA Vs. SATBIR BHARADWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/jd during pendency of an Execution Petition filed by the respondent took the plea that respondent/decree Holder had compromised with Judgment Debtor to receive a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- in satisfaction of the entire decretal amount and in view of this compromise, JD/petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and JD was prepared to make balance payment of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) THE decree holder be directed to receive this amount towards full and final satisfaction of the entire decretal amount and satisfaction of decree be recorded. The decree holder contended that at the request of JD, he had agreed to settle the matter, if lumpsum payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid to him against the total decretal amount. However, the JD did not make the lumpsum payment as agreed and instead he tendered only small amounts in the Court. He made payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 14th February, 2007, Rs. 40,000/- on 18th May, 2007 and Rs. 35,000/- on 20th July, 2007. Thus, he paid only Rs. 1,25,000/- that also spread over a long period. There was no such compromise or agreement between the parties that the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- would be paid in installments. Since JD did not pay the lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- the agreement failed. The application made by the JD was merely a dilatory tactics.

(3.) IT is argued by counsel for the petitioner that decree holder has not refused that there was an agreement of settlement of entire decree on receipt of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. The contention raised by decree holder that this amount was to be received in lumpsum is a disputable contention and the executing Court could not have dismissed the application of the plaintiff without recording evidence of the parties and without giving a finding that the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was to be paid in installments as alleged by the petitioner.