Bimal Kumar Vs. Shakuntala Debi
|
Head Note
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVI Rule (13) , Order XXIII Rule (3)
A decree was passed entirely on basis of compromise - As the parties were already in possession of their shares no further enquiry was required to be made - Held, in the circumstances the compromise decree was final decree and not preliminary decree.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVI Rule (13) , Order XXIII Rule (3)
Compromise - Meaning of term "Compromise" - The term 'compromise' essentially means settlement of differences by mutual consent - In such processes, the adversarial claims come to rest and puts an end to the litigative battle.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVI Rule (13)
Preliminary decree and final decree - Distinction - Suit for partition - A preliminary decree is one which declares the rights or shares of the parties - Pursuant to preliminary decree a further enquiry is done for actually partitioning this property and placing the parties separate possession - A decree incorporating such determination needs to be drawn up which is the final decree. AIR 2003 SC 1608, relied.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule (3) , The Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 136
Suit for partition - Compromise decree - Later on a suit was filed by a party for declaring the earlier compromise decree had been obtained by fraud - The order was not stayed - The suit remained pending for 21 years and dismissed thereafter - Application for execution of decree filed after 21 years - Held, application was barred by limitation - Under Article 136 of Limitation Act, limitation of execution is 12 years when decree was passed and when no stay was granted time consumed in the said proceedings cannot be excluded for purpose of Limitation for execution of decreed under Article 136 of Limitation Act.
Topic(s)-Suit for Partition , Compromise Decree , Preliminary Decree and Final Decree , Limitation of Execution
Important Decision(s)- Limitation of execution - When no stay was granted time consumed in the said proceedings cannot be excluded for purpose of Limitation for execution of decreed under Article 136 of Limitation Act.