STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. INDIRA BUILDING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Decree Holder is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Executing Court passed in an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting the execution of the decree. A compromise decree for recovery of Rs.43,065.40 paise was passed in the suit on 10.11.1994. In execution proceedings, the executability of the decree has been challenged by the Judgment Debtor alleging fraud. It has been stated that while instituting the suit, in which the compromise was entered into, a fraud has been practiced on the Judgment Debtor, as on 21.10.1991, a sum of Rs.35,000/- was not shown in the account of the Judgment Debtor which, if considered, would wipe out the entire liability of the Judgment Debtor. The suit, out of which present proceedings arise, had been filed on 12.8.1993. The learned Executing Court allowed the petition and a direction was issued to the Decree Holder to pay costs of Rs.5000/- and also to refund the purported excess amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum with quarterly rests till final payment.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

(3.) IN Adappa Papamma and Another vs. Darbha Venkayya and Others, AIR 1935 Madras 860, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that pre-decretal event, compromise or arrangement cannot be pleaded as a defence to the execution.