(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated 4-12-2018 rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) as well as the order dated 11-12-2018 rejecting the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to lead evidence is under challenge.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 are the owners of field bearing Survey No.235-1- A admeasuring 1 Hectare 56R situated at mouza Kavatha Tah. Deoli, District Wardha. On 25-2-2016 they entered into an agreement to sell the said field to the respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.24,15,000/- was paid to them by the respondent No.1. Though the balance amount of Rs.15,85,000/- was sought to be paid by the respondent No.1, the sale deed was not got executed. The respondent No.1 accordingly on 5-4-2016 approached the District Legal Services Authority, Wardha under Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ( for short, the said Act). All parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and on 9-4-2016 it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 would refund the amount of Rs.24,15,000/- received by them by 31-3-2017 with interest at 12% per annum. It was further agreed that if the petitioner and the respondent No.2 failed to refund the aforesaid amount, then the respondent No.1 would pay the balance consideration of Rs.15,85,000/- to them after which the sale deed in respect of the agricultural field was to be executed. An award was accordingly passed before the Lok Adalat. The respondent No.1 thereafter sought to execute the aforesaid award by paying the balance consideration as agreed. The Executing Court on 3-4-2018 directed the respondent No.1 to deposit the balance consideration after which the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were directed to execute the sale deed. In those proceedings, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code below Exhibit-25. According to the petitioner, the clauses reproduced in the award passed by the Lok Adalat were inconsistent and contradictory to each other. As it was not permissible for the Executing Court to go beyond the said award, the execution proceedings were liable to be dismissed. The Executing Court dismissed the said application. Another application below Exhibit-26 was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead the evidence as regards contents of the award. This application was also rejected by the Executing Court. Being aggrieved these orders are challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) Shri Rahul Dhande, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court committed an error in rejecting the objections raised under Section 47 of the Code. According to him, the award passed by the Lok Adalat was not executable as it was not in consonance with the agreed terms. Referring to the said award, it was submitted that Clause 2 thereof was contradictory to Clause 1 as there was no question of the petitioner and respondent No.2 paying balance consideration of Rs.15,85,000/- as stated therein. The said defendants were in fact entitled to receive the balance consideration and not pay that amount. It was well settled that the Executing Court could not travel beyond the decree which was required to be executed as it stood and hence the award as passed was not capable of execution. He submitted that the Executing Court in the impugned order has referred to such terms which were not part of the award while rejecting the objections raised by the original defendants. He referred to the provisions of Sections 19 to 21 of the said Act as well as to the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulation, 2009 in that regard. Further, the Executing Court was not justified in rejecting the application for permission to lead evidence. If the award as passed was now sought to be executed, it would result in execution of such terms that were never agreed to by the parties. He thus submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.