Disposed

Smt. Meera Dixit v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019A227/2376/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order releasing funds under a compromise agreement. Court dismissed interference but directed the Execution Court to decide the petitioner's pending recovery application before actual disbursement to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Execution Court directed to decide the petitioner's application for recovery before releasing funds;Writ petition disposed without interfering in impugned order.

Smt. Meera Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2376 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabodh Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kamal Kesarvani, holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Power Corporation.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside judgment and order dated 1.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2010 passed by the XIVth Additional District Judge, Agra filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the court below to dispose of the application 13-Ga dated 28.4.2011 moved by the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2010 filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

¶7

Challenging the aforesaid order, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 1.12.2018 was passed by the Execution Court in the factual background of the case that some amount was liable to be paid by the Electricity Board pursuant to judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11018 of 1999, U.P. Electricity Board Vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Agra and others and ultimately by the impugned order an amount of Rs. 7 lacs towards security was paid by the Electricity Board alongwith 12% interest. With this direction the Misc. Case No. 56 of 2010 was disposed of.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled for recovery of a sum from the respondent no. 2 for which he had filed an original suit which was decided in terms of the compromise dated 14th March, 2018 a copy whereof is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Submission is that in view of the aforesaid the petitioner filed application Paper no. 30Ga before the Execution Court in the said execution case under Order 41 Rule 134-135 CPC read with Section 151. He submits that this application was liable to be decided as per the compromise the petitioner is entitled for the sum mentioned in the agreement.

¶9

Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the Power Corporation submits that this application relates to dispute between two private parties and the Power Corporation has nothing to do with this case.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.

¶11

On perusal of record particularly the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 and the application filed before the Execution Court I find that there is no good ground to interfere in the impugned order as a perusal of the agreement clearly indicates that the parties have agreed that the petitioner will be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- after release of the amount in favour of defendant no. 1 i.e. Ashok Kumar Agarwal. By the impugned order the Execution Court has released the

¶12

amount pursuant to the order dated 1.12.2018 in favour Ashok Kumar Agarwal and as such this is the stage upto which the agreement has no role to play. However, once it is agreed between the parties that after release of the amount the petitioner will be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-, to avoid any multiplicity of the proceedings for the purpose of release of the amount pursuant to the agreement passed in a different suit between the parties for recovery of the amount from Ashok Kumar Agarwal in favour of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that this application is considered by the Execution Court before the amount is actually released in favour of the respondent no. 2 particularly in view of the provisions that have been added in the State of U.P. by means of High Court Amendment by adding Rules after Rule 106 in Order 21 CPC and the application Paper No. 13-C has been filed under the aforesaid provision. The application may be disposed of by the Execution Court, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, on its own merit.

¶13

It is, however, made clear that in case the amount is still lying with the Execution Court, the same may not be released till disposal of the application.

¶14

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 p.s.

Smt. Meera Dixit v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meera Dixit v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azam Mahmood Vs Principal Judge and 2 Others

Vishnu Kumar Gupta and Another Vs Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Maharajganj and 2 Others

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs Judge Small Causes Court and Another

Rama Shankar Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahganj and Another

Hari Shankar Tiwari Vs Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Nagar and Another

Arjun Singh and 3 Others Vs Yogendra Bahadur Singh and 3 Others