CR No.2653 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2653 of 2006 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Gaurav & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Smt.Kiran & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar vide which execution filed by the petitioners has been ordered to be dismissed. Petitioners filed a suit for possession and also claimed mesne profits. Suit was compromised between the parties. Terms of the compromise read as under:- “ The parties have compromised in the aforesaid suit, CR No.2653 of 2006 2 which is as under:- 1. The shop, in question of the plaintiff is of new construction of 1987 and the suit of the plaintiffs is true and correct and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as per the suit; 2. That the defendants shall hand over the possession of the shop, in question, on or before 30th September, 2006, against receipt and on the first day of each month, the defendants shall pay part of the mesne profit to the plaintiffs against receipt @ Rs.1300/-. The defendants shall produced “No Dues Certificate” from the Electricity Department at the time of vacating the shop; 3. That if the defendants, for any reason, did not hand over the vacant possession of the shop, in question, on or before the 30th September, 2006, and do not pay the part mesne profit, as per the compromise under para 2 and do not produce the “No Dues Certificate from the Electricity Department till the 30th September, 2006, in that eventuality the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get the decree executed as per the suit and recover the possession of the shop, along with mesne profit; 4. That if the defendants hand over the possession on or before 30th September, 2006, to the plaintiffs, and also keep on paying the part mesne profit at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month on the first day of each month or deposit the bill then the plaintiffs shall not be entitled to recover the mesne profit.” CR No.2653 of 2006 3 It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the decree passed by the civil court respondent/tenants were to pay mesne profit to the plaintiffs against receipt at the rate of Rs.1300/- (Rupees one thousand and three hundred only) per month on the first day of each month. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that learned Executing Court has misread the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. It was clearly stipulated that in the event of breach by the Judgment Debtors the plaintiff/decree holders will be entitled to get the decree executed as per the suit and recover possession of the shop along with mesne profit. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if correct interpretation is given to the decree passed on compromise entered into between the parties, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.2600/- (Rupees two thousand and six hundred only) per month as mesne profit as claimed in the suit. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salkia Businessmen's Association and others Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others AIR 2001 SC 2790, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel on either side. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have not only oversimplified the matter but seem to have gone on an errand, carried away by some need to balance hypothetical CR No.2653 of 2006 4 public interest, when the real and only question to be considered was as to whether the respondent Authorities are bound by the orders passed by the Court on the basis of the compromise memorandum and whether the proposed move on their part did not constitute flagrant violation of the orders of the Court - very much binding on both the parties. The High Court failed to do justice to its own orders. If courts are not to honour and implement their own orders, and encourage party litigants be they public authorities, to invent methods of their own to short-circuit and give a go-bye to the obligations and liabilities incurred by them under orders of the court- the rule of law will certainly become a casualty in the process - a costly consequence to be zealously avered by all and at any rate by the highest courts in the States in the country. It does not, in our view, require any extraneously exercise to hold that the memorandum and terms of the compromise in this case became part of the orders of the High Court itself when the earlier writ petition was finally disposed of on 13.2.1991 in the terms noticed supra, notwithstanding that there was no verbatim reproduction of the same in the order. The orders passed in this regard admit of no doubt or give any scope for controversy. While so, it is beyond ones comprehension as to how it could have been viewed as a matter of mere contract between the parties and under that pretext absolve itself of the responsibility CR No.2653 of 2006 5 to enforce it, except by doing violence to the terms thereof in letter and spirit. As long as the earlier order dated 13.2.1991 stood, it was not permissible to go behind the same to ascertain the substance of it or nature of compliance when the manner, mode and place or compliance had already been stipulated with meticulous care and detail in the order itself. The said decision was also not made to depend upon any contingencies beyond the control of parties in the earlier proceedings." On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Reading of the compromise would show that liberty was given to the petitioners, to execute the decree passed on the basis of compromise, in the event of failure of the judgment debtors to comply with the terms of the compromise. Reading of the decree passed shows that learned civil court decreed the suit in terms of compromise. The compromise nowhere stipulated that the petitioners would be entitled to mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2600/- (Rupees two thousand and six hundred only) in the event of failure to comply with the terms of compromise. At best on failure of Judgment debtors to make the payment on the first day of month, the petitioners could have sought execution of the decree prior to the date fixed for getting possession of the suit property, but it could not entitle the petitioners to claim mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2600/- (Rupees two thousand and six hundred only) as contended. CR No.2653 of 2006 6 It is not in dispute that the possession of the shop has already been handed over to the petitioners, and mesne profit as per decree at the rate of Rs.1300/- (Rupees thirteen hundred only) per month also stands paid. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 13.10.2009 Judge rp