Meghalaya High Court : Application U/S. 151 (Order XX Rule 6A) of (Civil Procedure Code) Filed By Plaintiff Where Suit Is Conclusively Decided But No Decree Was Draw

May 18, 2022

Meghalaya High Court : Application U/S. 151 (Order XX Rule 6A) of (Civil Procedure Code) Filed By Plaintiff Where Suit Is Conclusively Decided But No Decree Was Draw

A Single Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew of the Meghalaya High Court has held that an application under Section 151 read with Order XX Rule 6A may be filed by a plaintiff in a case where his suit is there is a conclusive determination of the suit but no formal decree was drawn to that effect.

The Court was dealing with a revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution filed for seeking the quashing of the order of the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District in execution. The case of the petitioner was that a Title Suit was instituted by the petitioners as plaintiffs before the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, which in the course of proceedings resulted in a compromise between the parties. Thereafter, a compromise petition was filed before the Court below and the entire suit was disposed of by order in 2016.

Due to the non-compliance of the terms of compromise by the respondents, the petitioners approached the Learned Lower Court for the execution of the compromise deed. The Learned Court below vide orders appointed a Bailiff to act as a mediator to conduct a local inspection to make proper measurements of the respective lands of the parties and to file a report before the Court, which was filed in 2019.

The respondents through their counsel filed an objection in the said Execution Case and the Learned Court below entertained their objection and disposed of the suit vide the impugned order, by holding that there was no decree drawn up in terms of the compromise agreement, leaving the parties to solve their own disputes and concluding by allowing the objection application of the respondents against the application for execution, which was made by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 15 of the CPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners were before the Court. At the outset, the Court perused the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and observed that this provision contemplates that after the Court records the compromise as was done in the instant case vide order of 2016, it shall proceed to pass a decree, which, however, in the present case even though the compromise deed was to the satisfaction of the learned Lower Court and the Title Suit disposed of in terms of the said compromise, no formal decree was drawn up.

On the factual aspects of this case, the Court opined, “These being matters of procedure, in the considered view of this Court, as there was no decree drawn up, the petitioner is required to file an application under Section 151 read with Order 20 Rule 6-A CPC, before the lower Court below for drawing the decree in accordance with the order dated 04.07.2016. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 is set aside and quashed and the execution application on the preparation of the decree and 7 the filing of the certified copy thereof, shall be taken up by the Executing Court. No objection shall be entertained by the Court below in the preparation of the decree as it is only a formality that is to be completed in terms of the compromise.”

Thus, the Court opined that the entire process was to be dealt with expeditiously by the Learned Lower Court immediately on receipt of the application under Section 151 read with Order 20 Rule 6A CPC which shall be filed by the petitioner in a time-bound manner.