TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Decision: Compromise Decree Final & Enforceable; Execution Petition Barred by Limitation</h1> <h3>Bimal Kumar and Ors. Versus Shakuntala Debi and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court determined that the compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was final and enforceable without the need for further proceedings. Regarding the ... - Issues Involved:1. Enforceability of the compromise decree.2. Whether the execution proceeding was barred by limitation.Summary:Enforceability of the Compromise Decree:The first issue addressed was whether the decree passed by the court of first instance on the basis of compromise was enforceable or required completion of a final decree proceeding. The Supreme Court concluded that the compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was a final decree. The parties admitted they were in separate and exclusive possession of the properties allotted to them, and no further inquiry was necessary. The decree was final in nature as their shares were allotted, and nothing remained to be done by metes and bounds. The compromise application did not contain any clause regarding the future course of action, indicating that the rights had been fully settled.Limitation for Execution Proceeding:The second issue was whether the execution proceeding was barred by limitation. The executing court initially held that the execution petition was barred by limitation. However, the High Court reversed this decision, considering various factors, including the pendency of a subsequent suit and appeal. The Supreme Court, referring to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, stated that the period for filing an execution application is twelve years from when the decree becomes enforceable. It was noted that there was no stay of the earlier judgment or any proceedings emanating from it. The decree became enforceable immediately, and the time consumed in the subsequent suit and appeal could not be excluded for computation of the limitation period. Consequently, the initiation of execution proceedings was barred by limitation, and the High Court's decision was unsustainable.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order in Civil Revision was set aside, and the executing court's decision was restored. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
