Mr. Abhimanve Shrestha and Mr. Pritesh Patni, Advocates v. ANURAG SINGH

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking to challenge the Order dated 23.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge- 01 (South), Saket Court, New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 57/2017 titled Anurag Singh v. Jharna Jhaveri [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”].

2. By the Impugned Order, the objections as filed by the Petitioner (Judgment Debtor before the Executing Court) under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”] have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 05.09.2022 directed that the proceedings before the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed and thereafter, the matter was listed for final hearing on 29.11.2022. The matter has continued as is since then.

4. Briefly the facts are that a suit for permanent and prohibitory Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.06.2025 12:29:37 C.R.P. 137/2022 injunction being Suit No. 211/2004 captioned Anurag Singh v. Jharna Jhaveri was filed by the Respondent (Decree Holder before the Executing Court) against the Petitioner.

4.1 It is the case of the parties that the Petitioner and the Respondent established a partnership to produce films in the year 1992 and executed a

partnership deed on 27.02.1998. Disputes arose between the parties which led to the filing of the Suit. In the Suit, the following were the prayers: “a. Decree a suit for permanent, prohibitory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining her from: i. Entering the premises of the plaintiff and coming within a radius of 50 meters of the premises of the Plaintiff; A- 11/1, SFS Flats, Saket, New Delhi-110017 or of the work places of the Plaintiff at H-75A, SFS Flats Saket and of the house of his parents at Shram Niketan, Village Jamudi, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh and of his brother Aman Namra at B 6T, Delhi Police Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-92 ii. Committing any further physical, verbal or other abuse upon the person of the Plaintiff or of his parents, brother, associate and co-tenant, or of other friends or visitors to his house iii. Harassing the Plaintiff by screaming abuse against the Plaintiff in the vicinity of his house or elsewhere iv. Making telephone calls, Texting/smsing/messaging, emailing or mailing through post the Plaintiff or his parents, brother or his associate/co-tenant or attempting to contact the Plaintiff directly through any other means v. Putting his number upon the website”

4.2 Although the Petitioner entered appearance in the Suit, no Written Statement was filed by her.

4.3 The record reflects that during the pendency of the Suit, a joint Application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, was filed by the parties, which was supported by affidavits of both the parties, wherein it was stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The statement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.06.2025 12:29:37 C.R.P. 137/2022 of both the Petitioner and the Respondent were recorded by the learned Trial Court and the Suit was disposed of as compromised on 31.08.2005 and a decree sheet was drawn up in respect thereof.

4.4 Thereafter, an Application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC for enforcement of the Decree dated 31.08.2005 was filed by the Respondent on 20.10.2016. It was stated therein that the Petitioner is wilfully and intentionally disobeying the Decree passed by the Court on 31.08.2005 in Suit No. 211 of 2004 captioned Anurag Singh v. Jharna Dhaveri. Notice was issued in this Petition by the Executing Court on 27.05.2017.

4.5 The Reply was filed by the Petitioner denying that there had been any wilful disobedience/non-compliance. In essence, it was contended in the Reply that the Decree falls within the second part of the Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, and thus, was a nullity and unenforceable. It was stated therein that the Court disposed of the Suit being conscious that the relief as contemplated cannot be granted, and thus, the Judgment and Decree dated

31.08.2005, which was passed by the learned Trial Court is unenforceable.

4.6 The Petitioner filed objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC to the Ex. Petition. As stated above, the objections were dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Suit proceeded ex parte and an Application to set aside the ex parte order was filed by the Petitioner, and during the proceedings of the Suit, the settlement talks were initiated which led to the recording of the settlement between the parties. It is further stated that since the Decree was passed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.06.2025 12:29:37 C.R.P. 137/2022 recording the satisfaction of the Respondent/Plaintiff, and not upon the satisfaction of the Court, the Decree is passed under the second part of the Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, and thus, is not executable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR Sadhna Rai (Smt.) v. Rajinder Singh & Ors.1 in this behalf.

5.1 In addition, it is contended that the Decree is void for being passed “to do or omit to do an uncertain act at an uncertain place.”

5.2 It is further contended that the Undertaking as given by the Petitioner unless accepted by the Court does not bind a party and does not act as an estoppel against the person who has made the statement. It is contended that since the Court did not decide or record the satisfaction on the jurisdictional facts or the legality of the compromise, the compromise was on the face of it void, thus, the Decree is an inexecutable decree, therefore, the Execution Petition is liable to be rejected.

5.3 It is submitted that a decree which cannot be passed on an adjudication cannot be passed on a compromise. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab (now Haryana) & Ors. v. Amar Singh & Anr.2

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand has contended that the Decree does not fall under the second part of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC but falls under the first part of Rule 3 of the CPC, and is thus enforceable. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also seeks to rely upon 1 (2006) 5 SCC 566 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.06.2025 12:29:37 C.R.P. 137/2022 the Pushpa Devi Bhagat case in support of his contentions.

6.1 In addition, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the challenge that was raised by the Petitioner to the objections of the lawfulness of the Decree cannot be raised before the Executing Court but is required to be raised before the Court that has passed such a decree. In this behalf, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Janakiammal v. S.K. Kumarasamy (D) through LRs & Ors.3 and R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy & Ors.4.

6.2 In addition, it is contended that a presumption exists in favour of the Court that has passed the decree once a decree has been passed.

6.3 Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also argued that the meaning and purport of the judgment and decree must be gathered from the terms of the judgement and the decree and that a perusal of the Judgement and Decree dated 31.08.2005 shows that the judgment or the decree is not barred by any provision of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Reliance is placed on the judgments passed by this Court and the Supreme Court including in Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited v. Pragatisheel Mazdoor Sangh Delhi Pradesh and Ors.5, Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Vidya Sagar Hospital Union6 and Kwality Restaurant v. Jagdish and Ors.7