RAMZANALI GULAMHUSSAIN RAMODIYA Vs. HAMIDA KARIM RAMODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on October 9, 2001 in Chamber Summons No. 562 of 2001 in Execution Application No. 20 of 1998 in Appeal No. 575 of 1994 in Suit No. 3033 of 1994. The Chamber Summons was taken out on behalf of the applicants/original defendants praying for an order of stay of sale of immovable property fixed on April 27, 2001 as per the proclamation issued by the Sheriff of Bombay on April 19, 2001 and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) AS stated in the affidavit-in-reply in support of Chamber Summons, the respondents had filed a suit, No. 3033 of 1994, against the appellants, which was settled by appointment of mediator and consent decree was passed on April 22, 1996. As per the said decree, Ramodiya Mansion II was to be sold and the respective shares were to be paid to respondents. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants-applicants before the learned Single Judge that the consent decree was in respect of the property and not for a particular amount. In view of the terms and conditions of the consent decree, if the property could not fetch a particular amount, the appellants could not be held liable to pay a sum of money, since the decree in question was not a money decree. It was stated that notional value of Ramodiya Mansion II was fixed at Rs. 4,32,00,000/ -. But the property was actually sold for an amount of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- only. In view of that, it was not open to the respondents to claim anything more, and that, too, by praying for realisation of the amount from other properties of the appellants. The said prayer, according to the appellants, was illegal, unlawful, inequitable and could not be granted.

(3.) THE case of the respondents, on the other hand, was that in the previous proceedings, the matter was settled, a mediator was appointed, and consent decree was passed. Under the terms and conditions of the consent decree, the appellants were liable to pay a fixed amount, for which an order was passed by a competent Court. As per the said order, it was obligatory on the appellants to pay the amount. Since there was failure to comply with the decree, it was open to the respondents to get the said amount by taking appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, and the appellants had no right to object to such a course being adopted by the respondents.