9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his amount. The decree directed the respondent to pay within six months ₹ 22,500 carrying interest at 6 per cent per annum. The respondent failed to pay the decretal amount. On May 23, 1954, the appellant took out execution for ₹ 24,150 and attached lqbal Manzil. The application for execution was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. The execution proceedings ended in a compromise, The appellant agreed not to execute the decree for two months. The respondent agreed to pay within two months ₹ 24,150 with interest at 1 per cent per month until realisation. In default of payment, the appellant was authorised to realise the amount due, under the compromise in execution proceedings. The parties agreed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the compromise dated May 29, 1954 could not be enforced in execution proceedings. In other respects, the Bench confirmed the order of the Civil Judge dismissing the objections and dismissed the appeal. It is from this order that this appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave. The sole question in this appeal is whether the compromise of May 29, 1954 is enforceable in execution proceedings. It is open to the parties to enter into a compromise with reference to their rights and obligations under a decree. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prevents the parties from entering into such a compromise. If the compromise amounts to an adjustment of the decree, it must be recorded under 0. 2 1, r. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o enforce such a compromise is not taken away by 0. 23, r. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effect of 0. 23, r. 4 is that 0. 23, r. 3 does not apply to execution proceedings. Independently of 0. 23, r. 3, the provisions of 0. 21, r. 2 and s. 47 enable the executing Court to record and enforce such a compromise in execution proceedings. Nor doe,, 0. 20, r. 11(2) affect this power of the executing Court. Order 20, r. 11 enables the Court passing the decree to order postponement of the payment of the decretal amount on such terms as to the payment of interest as it thinks fit on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder. It does. not affect the power of the executing Court under s. 47 and 0. 21, r. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting postponement of the execution of the decree on the term that the judgment-debtor would pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month until realisation. The prescribed period ,of limitation under Art. 175 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 for an application for payment of the decretal amount by instalments was six months from the date of the decree. The compromise petition did not ask for payment of the decretal amount by instalments. It asked for postponement of the execution of the decree for two months. Article 175 did no,- apply to the petition. Even if Art. 175 applied to the petition, the order passed on the petition is binding on the parties until it is set aside and may be enforced in execution proceedings, see Monmohan v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
