CH MOSES Vs. K D LARAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of a scheme decree. An action was laid under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present appellant and another for settlement of a scheme and for certain other reliefs in regard to the London Mission Memorial Church. Visakhapatnam. Ultimately, this ended in a consent decree. By and under the terms of the decree, a scheme was settled for the management of the Church in question providing inter alia for the leasing out of the properties of the Church in public auction, for the appointment of legal advisers, for maintenance of proper accounts and for auditing of accounts. It was also agreed between the parties that all records relating to the properties of the Church such as title deeds, wills, lease etc., should be kept in the premises of the Church and a list of the said documents should be submitted to the General Body, legal adviser, and to the Court before the next meeting of the General Body, and that the accounts for five years prior to the passing of the decree should be audited by a qualified and registered auditor.

(2.) Complaining that the defendants respondents have failed to carry out the directions regarding the deposit of the documents in the premises of the Church and the auditing of accounts for a period preceding the passing of the decree, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 21 R, 32, C. P. C. to compel performance of the acts undertaken to be done by them. The learned District Judge dismissed the application in the hope that this application by the plaintiffs would serve as an incentive for them to give effect to the terms of the decree, and that the directions relating to the same would bo worked out as early as possible. He did not apply his mind to the question as to whether the respondents had failed to fulfil the' terms of the decree in regard to Clause 3 of the scheme and the directions contained in the last part of the judgment based upon the compromise. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has brought this appeal.

(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the disposal of this matter by the District Judge was very unsatisfactory and that the pious hopes would not amount to a disposal. There is substance in this complaint of the appellant.