Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: July 29, 2013
+ C.R.P. 94/2013 & CM No.7619/2013
KAMAL MOHAN SONI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.T.N. Razdan, Adv. with Mr.P.P.N.
Razdan and Ms.Smriti Razdan, Advs.
versus
POONAM ARORA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 115
th
of the CPC for quashing the order dated 12 April, 2013. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has made only one submission that the compromise deed
was not signed by all the parties particularly the same does not bear the
signature of Smt.Madhu Kiran Malhotra. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner does not dispute that the compromise deed was signed by his
client namely Kamal Mohan Soni.
th
2. The trial court by order dated 10 November, 2010 decreed the suit in
th
terms of the compromise. Smt.Poonam Arora on 6 June, 2011 filed an
execution petition as decree holder against the present petitioner Kamal
Mohan Soni, Lalit Mohan Soni and Madhu Kiran Malhotra as judgment
th
debtors. The petitioner filed the objection on 4 May, 2012 inter alia taking
C.R.P. No.94/2013 Page 1 of 3
the same plea that since the compromise is not signed by all the parties
therefore the execution petition is not maintainable.
th
3. Learned executing court heard the matter on 7 December, 2012 and
th
rejected the objection to the execution petition No.336/2011 on 12 April,
2013 with cost of ` 10000/-.
4. The trial court in paras 13 to 14 has dealt with the objection raised by
the objectors including the present petitioner and gave its findings in paras
13 to 15 of the impugned order which read as under:
“13. Now coming to the next point of objection i.e. Smt. Madhu
Kiran Malhotra being not a party to the settlement. On this
aspect, there is statement of JD no.1 Sh. Kamal Mohan Soni
that the JD no.3 (Smt. Madhu Kiran Malhotra) had already
relinquished her share in favour of JD no.2. Having made the
statement on oath in Court on 08.02.2012, JD no.1 who is the
objector herein is estopped from taking a contrary stand in the
objections. This statement was also accepted on behalf of JD
no.2 by his counsel in his statement recorded on 08.02.2012.
Therefore, estoppel operates against both these JDs, who cannot
stake a contrary stand now. In the referred to suit, as per the
arguments of JD no.1 he himself and the DH herein had
challenged the relinquished deed executed by JD no.3 in favour
of JD no.2. Apparently, now when the DH and JD no.1 and 2
had settled the matter in the suit for partition, they have
accepted the factum of relinquishment deed executed by the JD
no.3 (Ms. Madhu Kiran Malhotra) in favour of the JD no.2.
Ostensibly, the JD no.1 wants to come out of the settlement by
pressing into service hypertechnical objections.
14. The rule of estoppel is that a person cannot take a „U‟ turn
from his earlier stand when other parties have changed their
position on the basis of the said statement. Thus, the JD no.1
cannot take a contrary stand.
C.R.P. No.94/2013 Page 2 of 3
15. The objection of JD no.1 that the compromise deed was not
signed by all the parties for the reason that it does not bear the
signatures of Smt. Madhu Kiran Malhotra carries no substance
for the reason that through the JD no.2 namely Sh. Lalit Mohan
Soni, the JD no.3 is duly represented as she had relinquished
her share in favour of JD no.2 and this fact has been conceded
to by all the parties. Though, Smt. Madhu Kiran Malhotra was
a party in the original suit as defendant no.3 and had filed her
written statement.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that the
settlement was duly signed by his client. He has also not argued that
Smt.Madhu Kiran Malhotra has not relinquished her share in favour of Lalit
Mohan Soni/judgment debtor No.2 who is the signatory to the settlement.
6. Thus, it appears to the Court that the present petition is totally false
and frivolous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2013
C.R.P. No.94/2013 Page 3 of 3