HOTEL MARINA Vs. VIBHA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has adjourned the execution petition while imposing heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the appellant, which now stands paid. The appellant is primarily aggrieved by certain observations, which have been made in the impugned order although it is not disputed that the execution petition is yet to be decided. The appellants filed an execution petition and sought execution of judgment and decree dated 03.03.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Single Judge has observed in para 9 that on being asked as to under which clause of the compromise the plaintiff/judgment debtor was required to execute documents, the counsel for the decree holder had sought an adjournment. Observations in para 9 of the order dated 09.03.2018 read as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the suit, the parties had entered into an amicable settlement by way of an application being I.A.6376/2006 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which was filed duly signed by the parties and their counsels. The settlement deed has not been challenged by any of the parties. He further draws attention of the Court to clause 'g' of compromise deed, which we reproduce below: