- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. List revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
(2.) IN a Motor Accident Claim Case, the parties entered into compromise before Lok Adalat. The copy of the compromise is Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application. Through the compromise, the matter was settled at Rs. 50,000/-, which was half of the amount claimed in the claim petition. The last paragraph of the compromise states that case may be decided on the basis of compromise. It was provided under the compromise that Nand Kishore Saxena respondent No. 1 in the claim petition would make payment of agreed amount within six months and in case it was not done, then Wasif Ahmad and others, applicants in claim petition would be entitled to recover the said amount through Court. The said compromise was entered into on 4-11-1988. Thereafter, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/second Additional District Judge, Budaun, decided the claim petition (M. A. C. Case No. 14 of 1987) finally on 4-12-1988. The second half portion of the said order is quoted below : "the case is decided in terms of compromise. If the compromise would not be acted upon and no paid (ought to be payment) was made in pursuance of the compromise, the case shall be automatically restored on the complaint of the claimants. The compromise shall form part of the award. " The opposite party No. 1 in the claims petition, i. e. applicant in this revision, did not make the payment, hence execution application was filed being Execution Case No. 1 of 1990. In the said Execution Case, the applicant of this revision filed objections under Section 47, C. P. C. , which were registered as Misc. Case No. 12 of 1990. Second Additional District Judge, Budaun, through order dated 19-3-1991, rejected the objections. The said order has been challenged through this revision. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that "the words if the compromise would not be acted upon and no paid (perhaps payment) was made in pursuance of the compromise, the case shall be automatically restored on the complaint of the claimant occurring in the order dated 4-12-1988 appear to have been written inadvertently". Even though the in the order dated 4-12-1988 in the end it was mentioned that the compromise should form part of the award however the immediate by preceding sentence to the effect that if compromise was not acted upon and no payment was made in pursuance of the compromise, the case should be automatically restored on the complaint of the claimants, qualified the last sentence. The order dated 4-12-1988 could be read as an order deciding the case in terms of compromise with some modification. Through the said order compromise was not accepted in its totality. The question, as to whether such course is open or not, need not be decided in this revision as the said condition imposed through order dated 4-12-1988 was never directly challenged by the claimants. Executing Court cannot go beyond decree. Of course Executing Court can refuse to execute a decree, which is nullity, but in such situation, the entire decree will have to be refused to be executed. In any case, if different parts of decree are separable, then one part may be refused to be executed on the ground of nullity. However, a condition imposed in the decree cannot be ignored by the Executing Court on the ground that the condition is nullity. On the ground of nullity of decree, execution may be denied. However, execution cannot be enforced on the ground that the bar against execution contained in the original decree is nullity.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, impugned order dated 19-3-1991 is set aside. Objections of the applicant in this revision under Section 47, C. P. C. , are accepted. Execution Case No. 1 of 1990 is dismissed as not maintainable. Second Additional District Judge, Budaun, is directed to immediately issue notice to the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 14 of 1987 and decide the same on merit. Applicant is directed to file certified copy of this order before the Second Additional District Judge, Budaun/motor Accident Claims Tribunal, within two months from today. If certified copy is not filed within two months, then this order shall stand automatically vacated and this revision shall stand dismissed.;