TEJ KAUR Vs. JITA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a desperate attempt to clutch at the last straw as to how one can qualify the attempt of the judgment debtor to hang on to a litigation for last 23 years. The petitioner does not appear to have learnt his lessons in respect of earlier adventurism in arriving at this Court with frivolous objections through a civil revision in C.R. No.1679 of 1996 and a final adjudication rendered after hearing the parties on 18.09.2012. Whatever was considered and dealt with on objections taken by the judgment debtor that a compromise decree that provided for enforcement of certain rights could not be given effect to and when the Court was passing an order allowing for its enforcement, the judgment debtor wants to resurrect all the objections for full-fledged consideration again.

(2.) The compromise which was entered into between the parties was with reference to a claim by the plaintiff who was a tenant contending that he has right to possession and the parties compromised the matter of declaratory suit and for claim to injunction in such a manner that the judgment debtor offered some property to the plaintiff after the case which was pending in the High Court was disposed of. Evidently, the plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings in the High Court and the compromise stated that the sale deed will be executed within a period of three months if the case is successful to the defendants. It would appear that the High Court disposed of the case on 13.05.1992 and the application for execution was filed for obtaining a sale deed pursuant to the compromise on 21.11.1992. The first objection taken was that the application was filed more than three years from the time when the case was disposed of by the High Court and therefore, it is not competent. Dealing with yet another objection which was taken was that the compromise decree contemplates the passing of consideration within a stipulated period. The decree holder deposited the money of the balance of sale consideration only on 20.02.1995 and there had been no permission taken for extending the period for deposit of the amount.

(3.) Both these objections have been discarded by the Court below on a reasoning that the judgment debtor has already filed objections with reference to the maintainability of the petition and it has been considered by this Court in C.R. No.1679 of 1996 that was disposed on 18.09.2012 holding that the compromise was being capable of being enforced for the rights to secure a sale deed. The impugned order also makes a reference to the fact that the Court had through the order dated 06.02.1995 earlier dismissed the objections taken by the judgment debtor and the deposit was made immediately after the dismissal of the objections on 20.02.1995. The Court has observed, therefore, that when the judgment debtor's objections were rejected, it became possible for the decree holder to make the deposit and the deposit cannot be taken to be wrong or without authority.