1966 (9) TMI 166 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Executability of a consent decree.
2. Jurisdiction of the executing court.
3. Interpretation of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Validity of including extraneous matters in a decree.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Executability of a Consent Decree:
The primary issue in this case was whether a consent decree, which included terms of a contract between the defendants, could be executed. The court held that the part of the consent decree relating to transactions between defendant No. 1 Trilok Chand Kapur and defendant No. 2 Dayaram Gupta was "a contract between the parties. Even if it is put into the decree that does not make it executable." The court emphasized that an executing court cannot enforce an extraneous contract included in the decree by consent of parties. A decree is "the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit."

2. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court:
The court reiterated the well-settled principle that an executing court cannot go behind the decree. However, it is authorized to question the validity of the decree if it was made without jurisdiction. The court cited Gorachand Holder's case AIR1925Cal907, which stated that "the executing Court is entitled to refuse to execute it on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction."

3. Interpretation of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court analyzed Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that "Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or to be recorded and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith (so far as relates to the suit)." The court emphasized that the consent decree must be confined to matters which relate to the suit and must not travel beyond that. The court cited Lord Buckmaster's observation in Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapore Zemindary Co. 46 Ind App 240: (AIR 1919 PC 79), which stated that the decree should be confined to the actual subject matter of the litigation.

4. Validity of Including Extraneous Matters in a Decree:
The court examined various case laws to determine whether extraneous matters included in a consent decree could be enforced by execution. The court referred to cases like Shahu Shyamlal v. Shyamlal AIR1933All649 and Manindra Nath Biswas v. Radhasyam Biswas AIR 1963 Cal. 676, but ultimately concluded that the transaction between the pro forma defendant Dayaram and the principal defendant Trilok Chand was wholly extraneous to the frame of the suit, the relief claimed, and the relief allowed. The court stated, "The unpaid purchase price payable by the pro forma defendant to the principal defendant, under the independent contract between them, would not be part of the decree and executable as such."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the consent decree's terms relating to the independent contract between the defendants were not executable. The court directed that the parties bear their own costs. The judgment emphasized the principle that an executing court cannot enforce extraneous matters included in a decree by consent of parties.