Karam Singh And Ors vs Bhoopram

By the instant execution first appeal, appellant-judgment debtors have challenged order dated 08.02.2018, passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned Court below') whereby learned Court below has rejected their objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC to thwart execution of decree dated 10.03.2005 for specific performance of contract.

The decree as such was passed as a consequence of compromise between rival parties.

Normally, if compromise decree is passed, a party to the litigation cannot agitate the factum of compromise unless it is shown that some fraud has been practiced. The contention of appellants before learned Court below was that they are co-sharer in the property and as such the said decree cannot be executed vis-a-vis them. Learned Court below, while considering objections of appellants aforesaid, has recorded its definite finding that the appellants have failed to prove their share in the agricultural land for which compromise decree is passed in favour of respondent-decree holder.

During course of arguments, it is also stated at Bar by learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder that decree has already been executed.

True it is that if any objection is rejected under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC then the said order is to be construed as decree and is appealable as a regular first appeal but then upon perusal of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that the objections submitted by appellants are against the compromise decree and the subject matter of same is having no nexus whatsoever with the appellants. Consequently, the learned Court below has rightly held that they are having no legal right to raise any objection about execution of decree. The factum of execution of decree too cannot lose sight of the Court at this stage.

In view thereof, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.

The stay petition is also disposed of.