Facts
The Petitioner (Judgment Debtor) and Respondent (Decree Holder) were involved in multiple litigations settled via a compromise decree on January 22, 2018, for ₹44,00,000
Source reference: p. 2This was followed by subsequent Mediation Settlements on September 1, 2022, April 5, 2025, and July 5, 2025
Source reference: p. 2-3, 7Under the April 2025 settlement, the Petitioner agreed to pay ₹78,00,000 in six installments to resolve all disputes; failure to comply would revive the Respondent's right to execute the original 2018 decree
Source reference: p. 3, 5-6The Petitioner paid ₹20,00,000 but defaulted on the third installment
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC seeking recording of satisfaction of the decree, arguing that the transfer of the "Turkman Gate Property" (valued by him at ₹54,00,000) plus the paid cash satisfied the settlement
Source reference: p. 3-4The Executing Court dismissed the application on January 15, 2026, leading to this revision petition
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the Mediation Settlement dated April 5, 2025, novated the original decree in a manner that prevented the Decree Holder from executing the original 2018 decree despite the Judgment Debtor’s default
Source reference: p. 5, 72. Whether the adjustment of the Turkman Gate property’s value towards the settlement could be recorded as satisfaction of the decree under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC despite the breach of installment terms
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), concerning the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction
Source reference: p. 1Order XXI Rule 2 of the CPC regarding the procedure for recording payments or adjustments made out of court toward the satisfaction of a decree
Source reference: p. 1, 4General principles of contract law regarding "at-will" and "self-executory" settlement clauses, specifically the principle that contingent default clauses in mediation settlements allow for the reversal of parties to their original decretal positions upon non-compliance
Source reference: p. 7-8Reasoning
The Court observed that the settlement agreements (April 5 and July 5, 2025) contained explicit "default clauses"
Source reference: para 15, 19, 22Paragraph 18 of the July settlement and Clauses 9 and 10 of the April settlement specified that if the Petitioner failed to pay any installment, the settlement obligations would become "null and void," and the Respondent would be free to pursue the full "fruits of the decree" dated January 22, 2018
Source reference: p. 7-8The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that mediation settlements must always be construed to promote finality, noting that such finality is contingent upon the performance of the agreed terms.
Source reference: p. 8Since the Petitioner defaulted on the third installment, the Executing Court correctly held that the settlement terms stood terminated, and the valuation of the property became secondary to the Respondent’s right to execute the original decree for the full amount (calculated by the Nazir at ₹1,08,27,457 after adjustments)
Source reference: p. 6-8Holding
The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, holding that when a mediation settlement is self-executory and contains contingent provisions for reversal in case of breach, the Executing Court maintains jurisdiction to execute the original decree if the debtor defaults
The court found no merit in the plea to adjust the property value against the settlement amount after the settlement had failed due to the Petitioner's non-payment
Source reference: p. 6, 8All pending applications were rendered infructuous
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Mohd. NadeemvsSushma Choudhary
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in