SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 5.10.1988 whereby the objection petition filed on behalf of the judgment debtor was dismissed.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff Sunil Kumar restraining the defendant, his landlord from interfering in his possession etc. Application for ad interim injunction was declined and the appeal there against was preferred by the plaintiff/objector. Before the appellate court, a statement was made on 3.8.1987 by Sunil Kumar undertaking to vacate the shop No. 28, Sabzi Mandi, Gurgaon, on 30.8.1988 and to deliver the vacant possession to Manohar Lal respondent. He also undertook to go on paying damages @ Rs. 300.00 per month for use and occupation. In view of this statement, the trial court passed an order of ejectment against the plaintiff on 10.8.1987. After the expiry of the period that is after 30.8.1988, the landlord filed an execution application in which objection was filed that there was no no valid compromise between the parties nor any decree as such was passed and the same was not executable. The Executing Court dismissed the said objection with the observations that "in my opinion now the plaintiff cannot be allowed to go back upon his words and to say that the compromise decree is not executable, even if no decree had been drawn out as such.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither statements of the parties were signed by them not them nor there was any written compromise and, therefore, no decree as such could be passed on the passed on the basis of statements alone. I support of his contention, he referred to AIR 1988 SC 400.