JAYSINGH MARUTI SHELKE Vs. ASHOK RAGHUNATH SHELKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally, by consent.

(2.) The Applicant/Petitioner is the original Judgment Debtor and Respondents are heirs of original Decree Holders. The Petitioner filed an application below Exh. 50, in Regular Darkhast No. 93 of 2002 under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), based upon the consent terms dated 27th June, 2001 in Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 1995, regarding satisfaction of the decree and thereby claimed the disposal of execution proceedings pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. The same was opposed by the Decree Holders. The learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, and after perusal of the material placed on record, including alleged consent decree and the orders passed thereon, by the impugned order rejected the said application, and, therefore, this Revision.

(3.) Admittedly, the consent terms was not signed by the deceased Ashok Shelke, but signed by the original Plaintiff and other original Defendants except Defendant No.4 Ashok. Deceased Ashok 's name was deleted from the proceedings at the instance of present PetitionerJaysing. There are discrepancies and variances in the original consent terms which produced on record (Exh. B) and the carbon copy of the consent terms below Exh. "A". The discrepancies so recorded even by the learned Judge, the Petitioner is unable to justify the same. This admitted discrepancies/ variances, even in the maps, therefore, goes to the root of the matter to the submission of the other side that these documents are fake, bogus and manipulated. The doubt is also, therefore, created whether document Exh. "A" produced in the Revision application is the carbon copy of the original consent terms produced at Exh. B or not. The carbon copy, even if any, produced unless proved according to the law, cannot be relied upon, specifically when the authenticity, validity and legality of the same also raised. Therefore, the contents of alleged consent terms, at this stage, cannot be stated to be binding on the Decree Holder. There is no material on record to show that the Constituted Attorney appeared for deceased Defendant No.4 and/or supported the contents. The consent terms is not binding to the party who is not signatory to the same. The carbon copy of the alleged consent terms with admitted discrepancies and variances itself creates doubt and supports the case that the document so relied upon is false and unreliable and it is concocted and fabricated. There is nothing brought on record to show that there was certified adjustment of the decree out of the court. The compromise, as recorded, as per the application, was strongly opposed on various grounds as recorded above. Therefore, unless validity of such consent terms is decided finally and the parties record such compromise or report to the executing Court certifying the same, the executing Court needs to proceed to adjudicate and to execute the decree, by deciding issues relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree. Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain, 1997 1 SCC 373, Badamo Devi Vs. Sagar Sharma, 1999 6 SCC 30] .