AMAR NATH DOGRA Vs. SHIV NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil Revision Petition, order dated 30 -12 -1991 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Bhaderwah in execution application has been challenged by the petitioner who is the decree -holder plaintiff -landlord.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the respondent regarding a shop -situated at Nagar, Bhaderwah, District Doda. This suit was filed on 19 Feb. 1987, but on the very next date, i.e. 20 Feb. 1987, the parties entered into a compromise, and based on the agreement between them for settlement of disputes by compromise a compromise decree was passed by the learned Sub Judge, Bhaderwah, As per this decree, the respondent who was defendant in the suit was to vacate and hand over other vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner on or before 1st. Jan. 1990. Because the suit shop was not handed over by the respondent to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid decree having been passed and because the period by which the vacant possession was to be delivered stood expired, the petitioner admittedly had no option, but to approach the executing court of Sub Judge, Bhaderwah, however, dismissed the execution application on the ground that after the passing of the decree the parties had entered into a new independent agreement whereby new tenancy had been created in favor of the respondent and because the respondent had become tenant once again under a new agreement the decree passed on 20 Feb. 1987 had been rendered in fructuous and was, therefore, not executable. Aggrieved by the passing of this order, the petitioner has preferred this revision.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the suit was filled on 19 Feb. 1987 on the very next day, i. e, 20 Feb. 1987, the parties entered into a compromise. The application for entering into a compromise was filled on the same very day. The compromise deed was produced in the court and it was based on this that the compromise decree was passed by the trial court. I have seen the decreed dated 20 Feb. 1987. The decree by itself does not contained in the compromise deed was passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. As to what exactly are the terms of the decree and conditions of the compromise deed. The compromise deed consists of six paragraphs, first para relates to the facts that the defendant admits all the contents of the plaint. In the second para, it has been stated that the defendant would hand over the possession of the suit para, it is stated that the defendant would pay the arrears, of rent and further rent upto 31 -12 -1989 against the proper receipt. The 4th para deals with the stipulations that defendant would not sublet the suit shop to any other person and use it for his own business. The 5th para, which is of crucial importance in this case lays down stipulation between themselves. Sixth para states that the parties would bear the expenses of litigations. It appears that because of the stipulations contained in para No. 5 of the compromise deed, viz, that the parties would execute between themselves a separate agreement with regard to the terms of this deed and agreement to have been executed between the parties. This agreement also being of equal importance has been executed between the parties. This agreement also being of equal importance has been very carefully perused by me. It contains the following terms and conditions: -