HASINA BIBI Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who were the opposite parties before the Revisional Court, have challenged the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 13 -11 -1997, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, whereby the Revisional Court has allowed the revision filed by the revisionist permitting the execution of the compromise decree, which has arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the revision before the Revisional Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that petitioners landlord filed suit No. 642 of 1977 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No. 3 (defendant in the suit). The aforesaid suit was decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment on 22 -9 -1982 by the Small Causes Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree dated 22 -9 -1982, revisionist respondent No. 3 filed revision No. 715 of 1982 before the Revisional Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which was pending before the Revisional Court when a compromised have arrived at between the parties and the revision was dismissed by VII Additional District Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 24 -5 -1998 in terms of the compromise and the decree passed by the trial Court is modified as compromise decree. On 2 -1 -1990 the landlord decree -holder filed an application for execution of the compromise decree wherein it has been agreed upon that the defendant respondent No. 3 shall not be liable for ejectment. The respondent No. 3 filed objection against the compromise decree and its execution, which was rejected by the executing Court under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure vide its order dated 5 -2 -1994. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed civil revision No. 67 of 1994 against the order dated 5 -2 -1994 stating therein that this decree being a compromise decree and has been given effect to and thus has become unexecutable. The Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the judgment -debtor vide its order dated 13 -11 -1997 and held that the rejection of the objection by the executing Court is not inconsonance with the law. The Revisional Court has held that in view of the compromise decree, which has resulted into compromise decree created a new tenancy and therefore, the compromise decree has exhausted and is no more open for execution and after setting aside the order passed by the trial Court allowed the revision.

(3.) IN reply Sri M. Islam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 22, Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan and others. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are relevant for the purposes of present controversy, which are reproduced below: