SUBHASH CHAND Vs. ASHOK KUMAR TAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 8/06/1991 passed by Senior Subordinate Judge Hisar vide which application moved on his behalf for removing the attachment of the shop and the goods lying therein was dismissed and the respondent-landlord was permitted to lead evidence with a view to prove the authenticity of compromise dated 20/02/1991 said to have been arrived at between the parties.

(2.) Brief facts that have driven the petitioner to seek justice by obviously setting aside the impugned order dated 8/06/1991 and to get possession of the shop as also the goods which were attached need to be briefly mentioned.

(3.) Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant under respondent landlord with regard to a shop located at Hisar. On 18/04/1984 the respondent sought possession of the premises under tenancy of the petitioner as also laid claim with regard to amount of Rs. 6,160.00 said to be due towards rent. After a trial running into about three years, the landlord succeeded in getting decree for an amount of Rs. 6,160.00 with costs and interest but in so far as the relief claimed by him with regard to possession is concerned, the same was declined. On 25/07/1987 the landlord filed first execution application with a view to get decretal amount from the petitioner. Admittedly on 2/09/1987 the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 4,000.00. It appears from the records of the case as also from the arguments that have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties that the aforesaid execution application having partly succeeded was filed. The decree having not met with complete succeess, a second execution application was carried out on 29/07/1989 and claim for an amount for Rs. 7,749 / was made by the respondent landlord. Before reply to the aforesaid application could be filed by the petitioner, the Executing Court, in the absence of the petitioner, issued warrant of attachment on 15/09/1989. Not only the shop in question was attached but even the goods lying therein were also put to attachment and none other than the wife's brother of the decree holder, namely Shri Vinod Kumar, was appointed as Supardar. When the petitioner found to his dismay and disappointment that the shop and the goods have been attached in the manner aforesaid, he filed an application on 14/02/1991 seeking permission to deposit the amount as demanded by the respondent landlord and on the same very day, he deposited an amount of Rs. 7,749.00. The petitioner vide application aforesaid had obviously also prayed for recalling or setting aside the order of attachment but instead of passing appropriate orders on the said application, the Executing Court chose to issue notice of the aforesaid application to the respondent landlord. On the date fixed i.e. 18/02/1991 the respondent did not appear but on 23/02/1991 an application was filed by him along with a compromise wherein it was stated that the litigating parties have arrived at a compromise vide which the petitioner has accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000.00 and promised to vacate the premises. While considering the aforesaid application, the Court first chose to record the statement of the petitioner on 20/03/1991 and the petitioner categorically stated that he had not signed any compromise nor did he receive any amount. On 4/05/1991 the Court summoned the Bank records. The petitioner then filed an application for staying the consideration of the compromise which was styled by him to be an out right act of forgery and concoction and prayed for handing over possession of the shop and the respondent landlord filed reply to this application on 8/05/1991. The application aforesaid was fixed for orders on 18/05/1991 when the respondent filed an application under O. 21, R. 2 of the Civil P. C. for recording compromise. On 8/06/1991 the Executing Court, as observed above, disposed of both the applications i.e. one filed by the petitioner for handing over the possession to him and the other filed by the respondent landlord for recording compromise. It was observed by the Executing Court that compromise dated 20/02/1991 could not be said to be a "foreign matter" to the execution of the decree and appeared to be a case of only adjustment. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.