C.R.No.2167 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2167 of 2007. Decided on: December 03, 2009. M/s Texcardco, Panipat and others .. Petitioners VERSUS M/s M.G.L. Engineering Company .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) An application filed by the judgment debtors- petitioners for dismissal of the execution passed in Civil Suit No.350 of 1981, has been dismissed vide the impugned order. The judgment debtors-petitioners claim that the consent decree which was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.07.1987, has been satisfied as per the terms of the said consent decree. The consent decree passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . . . 1 C.R.No.2167 of 2007 reads as follow: - “CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANGANATH MISRA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.DUTT. For the appellants: in the CA No.1117/86 Mr.V.M.Tarkunde, Senior Advocate, (M/s Ajit Pudussery and Mr.A.K.Goel, Advocates with him. For the appellants in CA No.1118/86: Mr.Shanker Ghosh, Senior Advocate, (Mr.A.K.Goel, Advocate with him). For the respondent in both the appeals: Mr.A.K.Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate, with him). The appeals above mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 23rd, 24th and 29th days of July, 1987, UPON perusing the record and hearing counsel for the parties herein THIS COURT by and with the consent of the parties herein DOTH in disposing of the appeal PASS inter alia the following order: - “With the consent of the parties and their counsel we direct disposal of these appeals on the following terms: - 1) Shri Gopi Krishan Khanna shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of rupees two lacs out of the amount lying in deposit, under the orders of the trial Court, in the United Commercial Bank, Panipat, representing the sale proceeds of the firm's assets . . . 2 C.R.No.2167 of 2007 in full satisfaction of all his dues including rent and damages up to 14.08.1987. The balance amount in the Bank shall be taken as partnership asset. 2) Physical possession of the tenanted premises shall be handed over by the firm/partners/receiver as may be in possession thereof to Shri Gopi Krishan Khanna on or before 14.08.1987. If the receiver is in such charge, under this order he shall be liable to hand over possession by the date indicated above. 3) The remaining assets excepting those which are scheduled in Annexure-A, of the lease deed or by the receiver are found on the basis of objections raised in that behalf shall be disposed of by the receiver at a very early date. 4) There are five other suits two of which have already been decreed and three that are still pending for disposal. All these are relating to money claims against the firm and each of them shall be taken to have been covered by the settlement. The two decrees stand satisfied and the suits pending are directed to be dismissed as not pressed. After these terms are worked out and satisfied, bank guarantees furnished by the partners shall stand discharged. 5) If the possession directed is not delivered within the aforesaid time leave is granted to move this Court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.” AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER THAT the order of this Court dated the 19th March, 1986, passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.5888, and 5889 of 1986, in the said . . . 3 C.R.No.2167 of 2007 appeals, be and is hereby vacated subject to the order above quoted; AND THIS COURT DOTH LASTLY ORDER that this ORDER punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. WITNESS the Hon'ble Shri Raghunandan Swarup Path Chief Justice of India at the Supreme Court, New Delhi dated this the 29th day of July, 1987.” As the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in the above said order that if the possession as directed is not delivered within the time, the parties could move the Supreme Court on the basis of the leave which has been granted by the Supreme Court. The Judgment debtors-petitioners moved another application for clarification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.1987, passed the following order: - “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are surprised that though the order was dictated in open Court after hearing the parties there has been necessity for making a petition for clarification. A counter affidavit has been filed. The fact that Gopi Krishan Khanna had made certain payments to the bank was taken into consideration while the appeals were heard and the order was made. We definitely recollect that taking into consideration the dealings including the payments to bank, the amount of Rs.2 lacs has been quantified. That being the situation payments already received have to be adjusted out of Rs.2 lacs. We see no . . . 4 C.R.No.2167 of 2007 justification as to why the request of Gopi Krishan Khanna to get delivery of possession through Commissioner should not be allowed. The Court has already been moved; that may be allowed. The expenses of the Commissioner shall be borne by Gopi Krishan Khanna. The delivery be affected within two weeks from today. All other prayers are rejected and in respect of them it is open to the appellant to move the Court where proceedings are taken, if they are so advised.” A perusal of the above said order indicates that it was left open to the petitioner to move the Court where the execution proceedings were pending. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors- petitioners claim that all the terms of the consent decree stand satisfied as such, it will not be, in the interest of justice, to continue with the execution proceeding which are pending since long before the executing Court. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the terms and conditions of the order dated 29.07.1987, has not been finally complied with. After hearing counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relegated both the parties to approach the executing Court for adjudication of their rival claims vide order dated 22.09.1987, the executing Court is required to determine all the questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree as per Section 47 of CPC. . . . 5 C.R.No.2167 of 2007 The controversy regarding the terms and conditions of the consent decree having already been satisfied are not to be decided by any separate suit but are required to be decided by the executing Court. The executing Court taking into consideration the controversies which have arisen amongst the parties, vide impugned order dismissed the application of the petitioner for dismissal of the execution application. From the impugned order dated 03.11.2006, it is apparent that the matter is now fixed for the evidence of the decree holder. In view of the above circumstances, there is no ground for interference in the impugned order. The parties are relegated to the remedy of approaching the executing Court. It is left open to the executing Court to determine, in accordance with law, whether the decree stands satisfied as per the terms and conditions of the consent decree, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.07.1987. It is further directed that the executing Court will give three opportunities to the decree holder to be availed within a period of three months after the receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the judgment debtors-petitioners will be given a total period of six months to complete its entire evidence. The execution pending before the executing Court will be decided within a period of one year. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 03, 2009. rka . . . 6