9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Enforceability of a compromise in execution proceedings. Analysis: The appellant filed a suit against the respondent and his brother, resulting in a compromise decree. The respondent failed to pay the decretal amount, leading to execution proceedings. A compromise was reached, allowing postponement of execution in exchange for enhanced interest. The High Court referred the enforceability of this compromise to a Full Bench, which ruled against its enforceability. However, a Division Bench upheld this ruling, leading to the current appeal. The main issue is the enforceability of the compromise in execution proceedings. The Supreme Court held that parties can enter into compromises regarding their decree rights and obligations. Such compromises must be recorded under the Code of Civil Procedure. The compromise in question was recorded within the limitation period and related to the execution of the decree. The executing Court has the authority to resolve issues related to the agreement postponing execution and the payment of higher interest. The Court cited precedents supporting the enforcement of compromises in execution proceedings, despite conflicting judicial opinions. Additionally, the Court found that the compromise could be enforced as the executing Court had the power to pass an order under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that the compromise did not seek payment by installments, thus not falling under a specific limitation article. The order resulting from the compromise was deemed binding on the parties until set aside. Therefore, the compromise of May 29, 1954, was declared enforceable in the execution proceedings. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring that the compromise of May 29, 1954, could be enforced in the execution proceedings. The Court affirmed the enforceability of compromises in execution proceedings and emphasized the executing Court's authority to determine such matters.
|
