Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the decree holder (Rehan Ahmad) against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had set aside the order of the Executing Court and held that the compromise decree dated 09.05.1979 was inexecutable and a nullity. The dispute pertained to property bearing Municipal Nos. 52-57, Maniharon Ka Rasta, Jaipur, originally owned by Ghulam Mohiuddin (Defendant No.1). An agreement to sell dated 04.10.1967 was executed by Saeeduddin (Defendant No.2), brother and power of attorney holder of Defendant No.1. When the sale deed was not executed, the appellant (plaintiff) filed Suit No.13/72 for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 11.05.1978, which was presented before the Trial Court. The compromise was signed by the plaintiff and Defendant No.1, and the Trial Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise on 09.05.1979. Subsequently, the decree holder filed execution proceedings. The judgment debtor (legal representatives of Defendant No.1) filed objections under Section 47 CPC, contending that the compromise was not verified by the court as required under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, and therefore the decree was a nullity. The Executing Court rejected the objections on 03.05.2007. The judgment debtor filed a revision before the Rajasthan High Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the Executing Court's order, holding the decree inexecutable. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the scope of Section 47 CPC and the powers of the executing court. The Court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree except where the decree is a nullity on the face of the record for want of inherent jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass the decree. The compromise was signed by the parties and presented to the court. Even if there was any irregularity in the verification of the compromise, it did not render the decree void ab initio. The decree was valid and executable. The Court further held that the High Court erred in allowing the revision and setting aside the Executing Court's order. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the Executing Court, directing that the execution proceedings continue in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Section 47 CPC - Executing Court's Jurisdiction - The executing court cannot go behind the decree except where the decree is a nullity on the face of the record for want of inherent jurisdiction. A decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if based on a compromise that was not verified by the court, is not a nullity and cannot be challenged in execution proceedings. The remedy is to challenge the decree by way of appeal or revision. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Order 23 Rule 3 CPC - Verification Requirement - The requirement of verification of a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is procedural and directory. Non-verification does not render the decree void ab initio. The decree remains valid and executable unless set aside in appropriate proceedings. (Paras 5-10) C) Civil Procedure - Specific Performance - Compromise Decree - Executability - A compromise decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell, where the defendant admitted the agreement and agreed to execute the sale deed, is a valid decree. The executing court cannot refuse execution on the ground that the compromise was not verified by the court. The decree holder is entitled to execute the decree. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a compromise decree passed by a civil court can be challenged in execution proceedings under Section 47 CPC on the ground that the compromise was not verified by the court as required under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, and whether such decree is a nullity and inexecutable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 21.03.2014, and restored the order of the Executing Court dated 03.05.2007. The execution proceedings shall continue in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Executing court cannot go behind decree
- Section 47 CPC
- compromise decree
- nullity
- lack of verification
- inherent lack of jurisdiction
- decree executable
