SHYAM SHANKAR GOELA Vs. UDAY SHANKER GOELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions relate to the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, as the executing court in execution proceedings registered as execution case no. 47/2010. The first captioned petition was filed by the party which was entitled under a compromise decree recorded on 26.03.2010 to purchase 50% share in the subject property i.e. property bearing no. 100, Ward no.3, Gali Gandhi, Tilak Bazar, Delhi - 110006, the petitioner of the second captioned petition being the party bound by the said compromise decree to execute the sale deed in favour of the former. As per the terms of settlement which was accepted as the compromise decree, the consideration payable in the sum of Rs. 14 lakhs out of which the latter had concededly received an advance of 10% to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- by cheque dated 22.03.2010. The sale deed was to be executed by 21.04.2010 when the balance amount of consideration of Rs.12,60,000/- was to be paid.

(2.) It is clear that sale deed was not executed on 21.04.2010. The petitioner of the first captioned petition, thus, took out execution proceedings (execution case no. 47/2010). It is after hearing the opposite party i.e. the petitioner of the second captioned petition, that the executing court, by order dated 01.06.2012, directed the first captioned petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,60,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 204.2010 till the date of the said order by bank draft/pay order in favour of the opposite party within one month of the said order, such amount to be released to the opposite party which was directed, in turn, to execute the sale deed in favour of the former in terms of the agreement dated 05.03.2010 within 15 days of such deposit.

(3.) The first captioned petition was brought to raise the grievance with regard to the levy of interest @ 12 % per annum over and above the balance sale consideration, the prime submission of the petitioner being that the executing court had gone beyond the decree and, therefore, such part of the directions could not be enforced. Though the petition would not say so, it has come out at the hearing that the petitioner of the first captioned case had filed an application for review, inter alia, on the grounds that there was no default on his part, there having been exchange of two communications, they being dated 20.05.2010 and 25.05.2010 which, per the submissions, would indicate the said petitioner had always been ready and willing to proceed ahead with the execution of the sale deed by tendering the balance consideration which had been duly arranged within time. The review petition, however, was rejected by order dated 008.2012 primarily on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.