- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision challenges the order dated 7-7-2006 passed by the executing Court rejecting the applicant's objection filed under Section 47 C. P. C. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist contends that the premises in question regarding which a decree for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages has been passed, was duly vacated by the defendant-tenant in the year 1997 after the parties had entered into a compromise. But the proceedings of the said suit did continue, though the defendant Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. had left the contest. Ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte in February 1998. That decree has been put into execution. Infact the then landlord opposite party Sewa Ram Chawla had given that building to his wife Smt. Sumitra Chawla in lieu of her maintenance. Thereafter, she gave it on rent to her daughter-in-law Smt. Pushpa Chawla wife of the applicant-revisionist Ajay Kumar Chawla in the year 2002 and she took possession over the same in which a Beauty Parlor has been opened. The learned Counsel for the revisionist thus, contends that since the parties had already compromised and the matter had been settled way back in the year 1997, there was no occasion for passing of a decree in the suit in 1998. Whether or not there was a compromise between the parties which brought an end to the dispute between parties in the suit, is such a question which should have been placed before the Court while the suit was pending. Admittedly that compromise was not given a light of day in the Court and consequently it was not given effect for an ultimate result in the suit. The decree in the suit was passed ex parte which was not challenged by either of the defendants including the applicant-revisionist Ajay Kumar Chawla. Therefore, the right to resist the execution of that decree on the basis of a so called compromise claimed to have been entered into between the parties in the year 1997, would not at all accrue in favour of either of the defendants judgment-debtors. An ex parte decree is existing which has been put into execution and executing Court is not supposed to go behind the decree. Accordingly, the claim for compromise as has been set up in the present case appears to have been rightly rejected by the Court below. The claim of possession of Smt. Pushpa Chawla over the disputed building is a subject- matter which is not to be dealt with in such objections under Section 47 C. P. C. The objections to that effect cannot also be pressed by the applicant Ajay Kumar Chawla on behalf of his wife. Thus, those questions whether the premises in dispute was validly let out to Smt. Pushpa Chawla by decree-holder's wife, is a separate question and it cannot be dealt with at this stage in such objections.
(3.) THEREFORE, all the contentions which have been raised from the side of the applicant-revisionist do not appear to have any merits or strength as to give rise to an occasion for any interference in the impugned order passed by the Court. This revision petition does not appear to have any substance and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;