MULKH RAJ Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Revision Petitions arise out of an execution petition pending before the Sub Judge, Rajouri in respect to execution of a compromise decree. In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent/ decree-holder a compromise decree dated 3-11-1986 came to be passed. The decree reads as under:-"it is ordered that a compromise decree in terms of the compromise deed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is passed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. " the terms of the Compromise entered into between the parties are as under:

(2.) IT appears that Sushil Kumar filed execution Petition No. 23 seeking compensation from the decree holder and a direction to construct the suit shop at his own expenses. Plaintiff/decree-holder appeared and agreed to construct the shop at his own expenses and the execution application came to be dismissed. This clearly establishes that the shop was not constructed within four months by the plaintiff/ decree holder. Plaintiff/ decree-holder instituted the present execution petition on 93-1992 for seeking eviction of the defendant/judgment debtor on the ground of default in the payment of rent under the terms of the compromise decree. During the pendency of the execution petition, the executing Court passed order dated 18-9-1992 which reads as under:. . (Vernacular Matter ). .

(3.) VIDE the afore-said order the decree holder was asked to lead evidence to establish defaults under the decree. Judgment-debtor/present petitioner filed a revision Petition No. 197/98 against the afore-said order before this Court which was decided vide judgment dated 7-7-1999 holding that the order passed is not a case decided and no revision is maintainable. After the afore-said order the judgment debtor raised the objection regarding the executability of the decree. This objection prevailed with the Executing Court and resultantly the execution petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 29-9-1999. This order again became subject matter of revision in Civil Revision No. 160/99 which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12-4-2001. This Court set aside the order of the executing Court and directed to proceed ahead with the execution petition in accordance with law. The executing Court consequently passed the impugned order dated 4-12-2003. From the impugned order it appears that after the remand of the case the executing Court was confronted with the plea of the defendant/judgment debtor that the defaults are required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control act and that the rent of the shop is being deposited before the Court. The judgment debtor also produced receipts of deposit of the rent before the Court. The executing Court after hearing the parties vide the impugned order has held that the rent deposited with the court is not in accordance with the terms of the compromise deed and the plaintiff is not required to adopt the procedure prescribed under the jandk Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, the issue having been decided by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 160/99. The decree holder has accordingly preferred the present revision petition against the findings of the executing court and the order of issuance of warrant of delivery of possession.