GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1624 of 1988, Gurcharan Singh and others v. Haryana State and another, 1993 3 RRR 57 and Civil Revision No. 1625 of 1988, Surjit Kaur v. State of Haryana and another as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. The facts are being stated from Civil Revision No. 1624 of 1988.

(2.) Land of the petitioners was acquired and after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation. Additional District Judge before whom the reference application came up for hearing, ultimately awarded compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 22/- per square yard with 15 per cent solatium and 6 per cent interest vide his orders dated 12.9.1981. State of Haryana filed Regular Second Appeals against the judgment of the Additional District Judge which were dismissed on 20.7.1984. Cross objections filed by the petitioners were allowed wherein they were held entitled to 30 per cent solatium and 9 and 15 per cent interest respectively. A huge sum of amount became payable to the petitioners. Petitioners filed a joint execution application. Since the amount was large the respondents did not deposit the same in lump sum but kept on depositing the same by bits and as and when the part payment was made in the court for payment to a particular Decree Holder the counsel for the petitioners from time to time made a statement that since the decree had been partly satisfied concerning a particular Decree Holder, the same may be dismissed as such. In the manner aforesaid three applications were filed and on payment of some amount towards total amount payable to the claimants, the statement was made by the counsel that since the decree had been partly satisfied, the same may be dismissed to that extent. Inadvertently, on wrong premises on 12.12.1987 counsel appearing for the petitioner Decree Holders Shri Shiv Ram made statement whereby he stated that the decree has been satisfied and the same be dismissed. Smt. Surjit Kaur petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1625 of 1988 filed fifth execution application No. 6.1.1988 wherein she claimed Rs. 66,774-80 along with interest due to her. The remaining 10 persons (the petitioners) in Civil Revision No. 1624 of 1988 filed a separate execution application on 20.2.1988 wherein they claimed the amount of Rs. 6,94,052-02 along with interest as the amount due to them.

(3.) Notices of these applications were given to the respondents. Judgment-debtor did not dispute that certain amount was due to the Decree Holders. However, it was submitted that as the decree stood certified to have been satisfied, the executing court was not competent to review its own orders. After placing reliance on Manorath v. Atmaram Sao and another, 1934 AIR(Nag) 143 Sardul Singh and another v. Harbhajan Singh and others, 1973 AIR(P&H) 319 and Udham Singh v. Atma Singh, 1941 AIR(Lah) 149. It was held that decree once having been satisfied on the statement of the counsel, no review was possible under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as mistake had not occurred due to the fault of the court and further powers under Section 151 CPC could not be applied where particular remedy was barred by the express provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It was held that once the decree was certified to be satisfied then no controversy remains to be settled by the court. The execution applications were ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed present Revision Petitions.