KAMALUDHEEN N K Vs. ABDUL JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are defendants in Original Suit No.18 of 2014 of the Sub Court, Chavakkad. The above Original Suit was filed by the respondent to realise an amount of Rs 52, 50, 000/- from the petitioners. Though, the petitioners opposed the said claim by filing written statement, during the course of trial, the matter was settled by way of mediation and a compromise decree had been passed. As per the said compromise decree, the petitioners agreed to pay '45, 00, 000/- to the respondent, within nine months. But, they have defaulted in payment of money. Consequently, the respondent initiated execution proceedings to execute the compromise decree and now warrant has been ordered in the Execution Petition, in execution of the decree.

(2.) While so, the petitioners filed Interlocutory Application No.342 of 2018 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.) to set aside the compromise decree on the ground of fraud and filed Interlocutory Application No.343 of 2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay of 837 days in filing Interlocutory Application No.342 of 2018.

(3.) The respondent filed objection, stating that there is no bonafides in the aforesaid petition and the petitions are intended to cause delay in execution of the compromise decree. It is also contended that in the Execution Petition, the petitioners have remitted about Rs 8, 00, 000/- towards decree amount. Thereafter, the petitioners started to challenge the legality and propriety of the compromise decree by engaging a new counsel.