AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img








Dr. Ghanshyam Jaiswal Vs. Kamal Singh [1996] INSC 278 (16 February 1996)

Ramaswamy, K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)

CITATION: 1996 SCC (3) 54 JT 1996 (5) 542 1996 SCALE (2)596

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Though the respondent has been served by dasti, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel. The facts are eloquent. In a suit for ejectment filed on April 5, 1984, the respondent had entered into a compromise on foot of which the decree for eviction was granted after recording the compromise and evidence. The respondent did not deliver the possession of the demised property in terms of the compromise decree. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to lay execution for possession of the property. In the first round of litigation, the respondent had challenged under section 47 of the C.P.C impugning the validity of the compromise decree which was turned down by the executing Court. The High Court dismissed W.P. No.2849 of 1994 by order dated August 19, 1994. Again the respondent laid another objection under Section 47 contending that the decree is vague and incapable of being executed. That was turned down by the executing Court on September 30, 1994.

Against that, the respondent filed a revision in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order allowed the revision by order dated June 21, 1995 in C.R. No.1252/94 since the counsel for the appellant had reported no instructions.

The only question is: whether the respondent is entitled to raise the plea of vagueness? Having entered into the compromise and suffered a decree on foot of compromise and also having raised the plea of non-executability of the compromise decree and having become unsuccessful, he is precluded by constructive res judicata of might and ought in Explanation VI to Section 11, to raise any other plea of the executability of the decree. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision and setting aside the Execution Application.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appellant is at liberty to have the decree executed with the assistance of the police. No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys