C.R. No. 2336 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2336 of 2007 Date of Decision : 3.9.2009 Jangir Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Kishan Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 27.1.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala vide which application moved by the petitioner for dismissal of execution as satisfied was dismissed. The petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the execution application as satisfied on the plea that, the matter stands compromised between the parties, under which the decretal amount was paid to the decree-holder. The decree-holder disputed the plea raised in the application C.R. No. 2336 of 2007 2 and denied having entered into any agreement or receipt of decretal amount, as pleaded by the petitioner. The learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in view of the stand taken by the respective parties, the learned executing Court was not justified in summarily rejecting the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Order 21 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to contend that, the decree can be satisfied by payment outside the Court by way of written document. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, once the compromise deed was placed on record, it was for the Court to have given an opportunity to the parties to prove their respective claims, because in the event of proof of compromise deed the execution application was liable to be dismissed as having been satisfied. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court was bound to give opportunity to the parties to prove / disprove the compromise deed and thereafter record a finding, as to whether the decretal amount was paid or not. In view of the findings recorded above, this revision is allowed, the impugned order dated 27.1.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned executing Court to dispose of the application moved by the petitioner after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stand. C.R. No. 2336 of 2007 3 The learned executing Court is directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within three months, on receipt of certified copy of this order by giving one opportunity to each of the parties to lead their evidence 3.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sd/sp' JUDGE