RAJENDRA CHATURVEDI Vs. GEETA OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by Sub Judge-VII, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No.121 of 2015 arising out of Execution Case No.4 of 2012, rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the annexures (annexed in the present application) that both the parties had entered into a compromise on the terms and conditions enumerated, therein and incorporated Clause D and E as under;

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel, for the opposite party, has canvassed that the ratio of Pushpa Devi Bhagat has been considered and discussed in the impugned order. That the order is in consonance with the settled proposition of law enunciated by the Supreme Court. It is argued that in the case of Mahalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others Vrs. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 404, the Supreme Court, in para 40, has referred to the decision rendered in Pushpa Devi Bhagat and the provision of Rule 3 Order 23 have been analysed and exhaustively discussed. It has been observed that Order 23 Rule 3 contains two parts; the first part refers to the situation where an agreement or compromise is entered into in writing and signed by the parties and the court being satisfied that the said suit has been adjusted either wholly or in part on the terms and conditions of the agreement can pass a decree and such a decree is executable. That the second part contemplates that when the plaintiff apprises the court that the defendant has satisfied his claims with respect to the subject matter of compromise and no obligation for performance survives by either of the parties, then the enforcement or levying of an execution is not maintainable.