C.R. No. 4825 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4825 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: January 21, 2009 Santokh Singh .. Petitioner v. Bakhshish Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 3. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.9.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the sale of property owned by the petitioner in execution of decree against him, was confirmed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,56,475/-, which included principal of Rs. 3,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 1,56,475/- under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.2004. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2, being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court, where the matter in dispute between the parties was compromised for a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as full and final payment, which was to be paid in instalments finally upto 30.5.2006. On failure of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to comply with the terms of the settlement arrived at before the learned court below, the property owned by both the judgment debtors was put to auction and vide impugned order dated 11.9.2007, the same was confirmed. It is against this order that the present petition has been C.R. No. 4825 of 2007 [2] filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the statement made by the petitioner and respondent No.2 before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur on 30.4.2005 shows that the entire amount was to be paid in instalments upto 30.5.2006. There were two judgment debtors. On 11.2.2006, the petitioner moved an application before the learned court below for deposit of his share of Rs. 1,50,000/-, but the same was not accepted by respondent No.1-decree holder and the cheque was returned to the petitioner, as was recorded in the order dated 16.2.2006 and the property owned by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 was put to auction. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 4397 of 2006 challenging the aforesaid order before this Court in which at the time of issuance of notice of motion, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Executing Court and the execution proceedings were stayed. He further submitted that the amount so deposited by the petitioner before the Executing Court has been withdrawn by the decree holder. Once that is so, the petitioner having paid his share of the decretal amount and the same having been offered by him before the final cut off date, as was settled, the property of the petitioner, which was put to sale for execution of the decree, was not required and the confirmation of sale thereof should be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the suit for recovery was filed on the basis of four pronotes signed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 way back in May and September, 1999 when Rs. 3,00,000/- were given as loan. Just to settle the account, though there was a decree which entitled respondent No. 1 much more amount in execution, a settlement was arrived at between the parties for Rs. 3,00,000/- as full and final payment, which was to be paid as per the schedule undertaken by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 jointly and severally. In terms of the schedule, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.5.2005 and balance was to be paid in two instalments of Rs. 75,000/- each on 30.11.2005 and 30.5.2006. It was further specifically undertaken by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 that in case of failure to pay the amount, as agreed, they shall be liable to pay the decretal amount and respondent No.1 shall be entitled to execute the decree. The judgment-debtors having failed to pay the amount in terms of the undertaking, the settlement, which was arrived at in the Lok Adalat, had lost its significance. There was no question of decree holder accepting part payment from the petitioner who was entitled to get the entire amount settled as per the schedule undertaken by the judgment debtors. The Civil Revision filed by the petitioner earlier challenging the order whereby an earlier C.R. No. 4825 of 2007 [3] offer made by him for payment of his share of 50% of the decretal amount was dismissed as withdrawn by him on 6.2.2007 with liberty to file objections in the execution and thereafter, no objections were filed in the execution proceedings, meaning thereby that he was satisfied with the process of execution of decree by attachment and sale of property, which has now been sold and the sale is confirmed. Even after sale of the property, the decree holder has not been able to recover the amount due as per the decree. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Admittedly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,56,475/- was decreed against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and in favour of respondent No.1. During the pendency of appeal before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, the matter was compromised at Rs. 3,00,000/- as full and final settlement. In terms thereof, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.5.2005 and balance of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid in two equal instalments of Rs. 75,000/- each on or before 30.11.2005 and on or before 30.5.2006. It was specifically undertaken at the time of settlement that in case of failure to pay the amount, as agreed on the due dates, the judgment debtors shall be liable to pay the entire decretal amount along with interest as per the decree. The compromise arrived at between the parties was not in terms that the two judgment debtors, namely, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were to pay 50:50 of the amount settled, as both of them had agreed to pay the entire amount jointly and severally. In view of this fact, no illegality was committed by the decree holder in refusing to accept 50% of the settled amount, i.e., Rs. 1,50,000/- on 16.2.2006 as was offered by the petitioner. The order having been challenged before this Court in the Civil Revision and the same having been ultimately withdrawn on 6.2.2007 with liberty to file appropriate application before the competent court in accordance with law, no rights flow to the petitioner even from the proceedings initiated on that account. As stated by the petitioner at the time of withdrawal of the earlier petition filed, no application before the learned court below in the pending execution proceedings was filed by him raising objection of any kind. In the execution proceedings, the property of the petitioner and respondent No.2- judgment debtors was attached and sold for a sum of Rs. 5,32,000/-. Vide impugned order, the sale pertaining to the auction of property belonging to both the judgment debtors was confirmed. Respondent No. 2 did not challenge the same. Even the challenge of the petitioner to the confirmation of sale is also totally misconceived in view of the detailed discussion above, where it was found that the judgment debtors had failed to adhere to the terms of settlement C.R. No. 4825 of 2007 [4] arrived at between the parties and on failure thereof, the decree was to be executed in its letter and spirit. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.1.2009 mk