AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—The Petitioner herein is a Judgment Debtor while respondents are Decree Holders in Suit No. 188/2004, in which compromise Decree was drawn on 11.11.2005.
In Suit No. 188/2004, by present respondent, in the background of various prayers, a settlement was arrived. Certain rights of the defendant No. 1 were admitted by plaintiff and the defendants agreed to decreeing the suit in terms of prayer Clause (c). Said prayer (c) in the suit reads as follows :
c) The Defendant No. 1, his agents, family members or any other persons claiming through the defendant No. 1 be restrained from carrying out any further construction of whatsoever nature in the suit property and the suit portion or any extension to the suit structure''s by means of permanent injunction.
In the Consent Decree, what was agreed and is crucial is as follows:
The plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 admit and agree that the said area of 2500 sq.mts. as well as the location/dimension of the said structures of the defendant No. 1 are shown in the plan drawn by surveyor Shri Sitakant Kamat. The said plan is annexed hereto and shall form an integral part and parcel of these consent terms. The area of 2500 sq. mts. is shown in red border lines in the said plan annexed hereto. The parking area which is over and above the said area of 2500 sq. mts. is also shown in red border lines in the plan annexed hereto.
The defendant No. 1 agrees that the Order dated 28.03.2002 passed in the matter of application for Temporary injunction bearing C.M.A. No. 26/2002/SK-I be confirmed and Decree of permanent injunction be passed in the terms prayed for in prayer ''C'' of the suit/plaint.
The defendant No. 1 agrees and undertakes not to carry out any further new construction in the said area of 2500 sq. mts. or in the parking area. However, the defendant No. 1 shall be entitled to carry out reconstruction/renovation/repairs to the said existing structures as shown in the plan drawn by Surveyor Sitakant Kamat, without in any way extending the plinth areas thereof.
...
The defendant No. 1 shall not interfere in any manner whatsoever with the remaining portion of the property beyond the said area of 2500 sq. mts. and the parking area which areas are shown in the plan annexed hereto and more particularly in the area in possession of the plaintiff No. 2 wherein the guest house/resort of the plaintiff No. 2 his family members is existing under the name and style of "BAGA QUEEN BEACH RESORT""
The defendant No. 1 agrees and undertakes also not to interfere with the plaintiffs and the properties in possession of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever.
The plan of existing structure was annexed to the consent terms to be integral part thereof showing the existing structures.
It is the claim of the Decree Holder that the defendant/Judgment Debtor has, disregard to the agreed terms which had become a Decree, by carrying out certain constructions in disobedience to the decree.
Therefore, the Decree Holder filed Execution Petition on or about 21.06.2007, which is registered as application for Execution No. 11/07.
The assistance of Court required to be sought and sought by the Decree Holder is as quoted in para 12, Column 3(j), which reads as follows:
...
j) The mode in which the assistance of the Court is required
...
(A) for an order directing the Judgment Debtor to remove the extension done by him above the suit structure No. 2 of original height of 3.50 mts. As shown in the plan annexed to the compromised terms dated 11/11/2005;
(B) for an order of detention of the Judgment Debtor in Civil Prison.
According to Decree Holder, during pendency of Execution Petition, the Judgment Debtor carried out further construction which consisted of swimming pool and some other structures. Details whereof have appeared in the Commissioner''s report, copy whereof is at page 44 and 45.
The Decree Holder had amended the relief sought in Clause (a) quoted above and had prayed for demolition of structure raised including the swimming pool which was raised / constructed during pendency of Execution Petition.
The application for execution was opposed by the respondents by filing a reply. A dispute was raised as to the fact of offending the structure. Act of willful disobedience due to the disputed structure sought to be demolished was denied. Judgment Debtors have pleaded in Para 13 of the reply which reads as follows:
...
The application is filed in breach rather than in observance of the law. The Judgment debtor states that structures such as four septic tanks, 3 soak pits and one additional well existing in the suit property were not shown in the compromise decree but which were in existence even before the civil suit which was compromised came to be filed by the Decree Holders.
The report of a Court Commissioner was sought in the background of said overt acts � disobedience during pendency of said Execution Petition.
The Commissioner''s report dated 28.07.2007 came on record. The Judgment Debtor raised written objections to the Commissioner''s report almost immediately on 10.08.2007.
Considering that Commissioner''s report was disputed, the Decree Holder examined two witnesses and the Judgment Debtor has examined four witnesses. It is thus a common ground that both parties have led evidence in relation to construction work done after the Decree and even during pendency of Execution Petition. The learned executing Court has noticed that admitted plan which was part of Consent Decree indicated that six pillars on structure No. 2 as well as swimming pool is not shown in the said plan, apart that, the said structure was certified to be new structure by the Commissioner.
Heard learned Advocates for respondents parties. Senior Advocate Mr. Lotlikar urging the grounds as raised in the Petition, argued that Petition deserves to be allowed. The points urged in this Court are as follows:
The learned executing Court failed to appreciate that considering the nature of the consent terms and the nature of breach complained of, in depth investigation into facts which were disputed and were alleged to have occurred subsequent to the passing of the decree, was required to be conducted but was not so conducted.
The consent decree being merely a contract between the parties super added with the seal of the Court, what the respondent were seeking by way of execution was specific performance of the contract contained in the decree.
The consent decree was not executable as it stood to be conducted.
Consent terms were just a promise and appropriate remedy in the circumstances for enforcement was to file a suit and not an execution application for ordering.
The direction to demolish the swimming pool is therefore not sustainable.
The learned Executing Court in any case ought to have held that Clause 4 of the consent decree could not be enforced and was void ab-initio since it amounted to placing a restriction on the right of the petitioner/judgment debtor to enjoy his property as absolute owner thereof which was impermissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act 1881 and therefore unenforceable.
Commissioner''s report is wrongly relied once it was under objection.
There is error in appreciation of evidence of Sitakant Kamat, the Surveyor who had drawn the map which was part of Consent Terms.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lotlikar placed reliance on reported Judgment to Habib Mian and Another Vs. Mukhtar Ahmad and Another, . This Judgment is relied upon to urge that:
A compromise decree is a creature of the agreement on which it is based and is subject to all the incidents of such agreement, that it is, but a contract with the command of a Judge superadded to it and in construing its provisions the fundamental principles governing the construction of contracts are applicable.
One of the cardinal principles in the construction of contracts is that the entire contract must be taken as constituting an organic synthesis, embodying provisions which balance in the sum of reciprocal rights and obligations. It is through the prism of that principle that the terms of the compromise decree must be analysed.
In his reply, the learned Advocate Mr. Nadkarni advanced submission which can be summarized as follows:
The Consent Decree us unambiguous.
The Consent Decree is in strict terms of prayer Clause (c) of the suit.
The Consent Decree does not transgress the frame and
limits of the suit and so long the Consent Terms is within the frame and limits of the suit it does not suffer the blame of being just a contract.
Whenever Consent Decree is within the frame of suit, the mode of enforcement of right accruing thereunder is by way of executing the Decree alone and not by way of a suit.
The Decree being one for perpetual injunction, it can be executed in the manner as prescribed in Rule 32 of Order XXI of C.P.C. Clause 5 with the explanation added thereto leaves no more doubt to equip the executing Court with all necessary powers to effectively execute a Decree for injunction.
The Commissioner''s report, though disputed, the dispute was to the mode and manner thereof. Manner of executing the conditions and not to the facts incorporated therein. Though by raising ground No. (d) in present Petition a dispute is raised as to existence of part of structure which now the Judgment Debtor claims to have improved. This factual aspect is raised for the first time and is not open for scrutiny.
Learned Advocate Mr. Nadkarni placed reliance on following Judgment:
Gurcharan Singh and Another Vs. Gurudwara Shri Singh Sabha (Regd.),
1975 Mh.L.J. 764 Jacob David Sopher v. Baldev Pathak
Manish Mohan Sharma and Others Vs. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. and Others, .
Latim Lifestyle and Resorts Ltd. and Another Vs. Saj Hotels (P) Ltd. and Others, .
Jai Dayal and others Vs. Krishan Lal Garg and another, .
1997 AIHC 4288 New Multan Timber Store and Ors. v. Rattan Chand Sood
1995 Supp (4) SCC 600 Misrilal Ramratan and Ors. v. A.S. Shaik Fathimal and Ors .
It shall suffice to refer and rely upon only one Judgment Jai Dayal and others Vs. Krishan Lal Garg and another, and quote therein which reads as follows:
If the decree-holder makes any construction clubbing the other adjacent property, property which is part of the subject-matter in the earlier suit, a party cannot and should not, by his action, be permitted to drive the decree for another round of adjudication of the rights in the second suit to be settled afresh,. In other words, giving such liberty will amount to encouraging persons to take the law into their own hands and drive the decree-holder to another suit. It can never be facilitated to circumvent the law and relegate the party for tardy process of the civil action. What is needed is an opportunity to obey the injunction. Noncompliance is a continuing disobedience entailing penal consequences. A separate fresh suit is barred u/s 47 of the C.P.C. Under these circumstances, the view of the High Court is clearly in error and appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court stand set aside and that of the trial Court and the appellate Court stand restored. No costs.
Though all Judgments cited by learned Advocate Mr. Nadkarni are relevant and directly on the issue, the law is summarized and which takes care of entire issue is quoted above and it could therefore be of no gain to discuss the Judgments. The law on the point is well settled.
While Commissioner''s report is challenged technically, the fact of raising six pillars is not disputed or denied.
In fact, the question to be decided to the executing Court was as to whether certain construction was carried out in contravention of the Consent Terms.
In order to test the truthfulness and substance of the pleadings in defence, this Court has discretely scrutinized the Consent Terms as quoted herein before. Para 2 of the Consent Terms distinctly clarifies that:
...plaintiff and defendant No. 1 admit and agree that said area of 2500 sq.mts. as well we the location/dimension of the said structure of defendant No. 1 are as shown in plan drawn by Surveyor Shri Sitakant Kamat....
Any effort by the Decree Holder to go or travel behind this admitted map was thus impermissible. In this situation, the learned Trial Judge accepted the Decree Holders plea on two foundations, namely the map annexed to Decree and Commissioner''s report.
Though the Commissioner''s report is challenged, the said challenge is baseless and raised just for the sake of placing on record an objection, and, it does not have any basis of whatsoever. The learned executing Court then rejected the objection and recorded finding that as the Judgment Debtor had violated condition No. 4 of the Consent Terms, the structures newly raised/constructed were required to be demolished and has passed Order, therefore, which is impugned in this Petition.
This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the Judgment Debtor cannot avoid the execution of the decree.
The impugned Order though brief, cannot be blamed as passed without recording reasons. It may have been desirable to incorporated further and detailed discussion, however, being laconic is not a vice. All that can be seen as avoidable on the part of the executing Court is that the impugned Order was well sustainable, even without slightest reference to the Commissioner''s report and, therefore, reliance by executing Court on Commissioner''s report does not in any manner vitiate the Order.
The Judgment through paragraph No. 16 discloses due and proper application of mind by the executing Court. The plan attached to Consent Decree even when seen in isolation accompanied by the admitted fact of having raised the structure was in fact an admitted fact and the execution of decree in terms of prayers was not just possible but imperative and the only option which has been legally resorted to by the learned executing Court.
In these premises, Petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Rule discharged with costs.