2003 (9) TMI 794 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of a consent order.
2. Validity and effect of an undertaking given to the Supreme Court.
3. Impact of the dismissal and subsequent review of a specific performance suit on the execution of an eviction decree.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of a Consent Order:
The appeal concerns the interpretation of a consent order passed by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the High Court's eviction decree while staying its execution until the decision of a specific performance suit (Title Suit No.49 of 1990). The consent order recorded an agreement between the parties that the eviction decree would not be executed until the specific performance suit was decided.

2. Validity and Effect of an Undertaking Given to the Supreme Court:
The appellant argued that the undertaking lost its efficacy after the specific performance suit was dismissed. The respondents contended that the execution proceedings should remain stayed due to the undertaking, as the specific performance suit had been reopened following a review application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the undertaking was given to prevent the execution of the eviction decree until the decision of the specific performance suit, not beyond it. The Court clarified that the term "decision" in the consent order referred to the trial court's decision and did not extend to the finality of appellate or review processes.

3. Impact of the Dismissal and Subsequent Review of a Specific Performance Suit on the Execution of an Eviction Decree:
The Supreme Court noted that the specific performance suit was dismissed, and the review application was allowed only to the extent of considering the refund of earnest money. The substantive prayer for specific performance was not granted. The Court held that the respondents' right to possess the premises based on part performance of the contract was negated by the trial court's dismissal of the specific performance suit. Therefore, the respondents could not resist eviction based on the reopened suit, which was limited to the issue of earnest money refund.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the undertaking given by the appellant to stay the execution of the eviction decree until the decision of the specific performance suit did not extend beyond the trial court's decision. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appellant to proceed with the eviction. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to vacate the premises, with no costs awarded.