THOMAS JOB Vs. P T THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor in E.P. 215 of 2001 in O.S. 174 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha is the revision petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order passed by the executing Court directing the decree holder to deposit Rs. 9,50,000/- within three days and to get the sale deed executed through Court.

(2.) The revision petitioner and respondent are brothers. The respondent filed O.S. 174 of 1979 for a decree of mandatory injunction to remove a building in the plaint schedule property and for surrender of vacant possession of the site occupied by the building to the plaintiff and in case the defendant refuses to vacate, for a decree allowing recovery of suit property. Originally on 31-10-1981 the suit was decreed. The revision petitioner challenged the decree and judgment in A.S. 140 of 1983 before the District Court, Alappuzha. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed S.A. 574 of 1996 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 3-9-1991 set aside the decrees passed by both the Courts and remanded the suit to the trial Court for a de novo disposal after giving both sides an opportunity to amend the pleadings, if necessary, and adduce further evidence. After remand, the trial Court again decreed the suit on 26-7-1993. The respondent was allowed to recover plot No. 2 shown in red shade in Exhibit C3 plan appended to the decree. The revision petitioner was directed to demolish and remove a portion of the building situated in the plaint schedule property. Mesne profits was also allowed. The revision petitioner filed A.S. 34 of 1994 before the District Court, Alappuzha. While the appeal was pending before the District Court, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act ("Act" for short). The matter was taken up by the Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha held on 5-10-1999. An award was passed on that day itself. Subsequently the plaintiff-respondent filed the present Execution Petition alleging that the revision petitioner has not complied with the terms of the compromise and as such he is entitled to get the award executed through Court. According to him, he is entitled to get a sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the property scheduled in the award on deposit of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The prayer in the E.P. was to issue notice of the E.P. to the judgment debtor demanding him to comply with the terms of the award and in case he refuses to comply with that demand, to permit the respondent to deposit Rupees 9,50,000/- in Court and execute the sale deed through Court. The revision petitioner resisted the Execution Petition. The Court below overruling the objection raised by the revision petitioner found that the respondent took necessary steps to get sale deed executed within the stipulated time, but the execution of the document did not take place due to the failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive notice in time. It was found that the decree holder is entitled to get the document executed through Court as provided in the award. The respondent- decree holder was directed to deposit Rupees 9,50.000/- in the Court within three days. That order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has argued that the award directed to be executed in this case is not a decree and the executing Court cannot invoke its powers conferred on it under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enlarge the time so as to enable the decree holder to deposit the amount. It is also ar gued that the only irresistible conclusion possible from the proved facts in this case is that the sale deed was not executed due to the fault of the respondent as he had no money with him and it was he who committed the breach of the compromise.