M/S. PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD.versusM/S. GANGOTRI SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. AND ORS.

                        [2012] 2 S.C.R. 648


A         MIS. PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD.
                                 v.
      MIS. GANGOTRI SAHAKARI AVAS S.. LTD. AND ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No(s.) 8297-8298 of 2004)

                         MARCH 30, 2012
B
          [DEEPAK VERMA AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 47 and Or. XX/ -
   Execution of decree - Questions to be determined -
C Compromise decree - Stipulating condition of payment of
   sum within a particular time - Objections rejected by executing
   court and order for execution of decree - High Court in civil
   revision holding that execution application having been filed
   before the stipulated time, was premature and hence liable
D ·to be rejected - Other objections not dealt with - On appeal,
   held: Premature filing of execution application does not entail
   its rejection - The decree did not lose its potentiality of
   executability having been filed on a premature date - Matter
   remitted to High Court to deal with the objections which were
E not dealt with by High Court.
       In a suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff
  against first respondent/defendant, a compromise decree
  was passed. As per the compromise, defendant was
  required to pay a sum to the plaintiff within six months
F from the date of the compromise. Since the defendant did
  not honour the terms of the decree, appellant/ decree-
  holder filed application for execution of the decree. The
  respondent/judgment-debtor objected to the application.
  Executing court rejected all the objections and directed
G for execution of the decree. Single judge of the High Court
  allowed the civil revision holding that the execution
  application was premature and thus was liable to be
  rejected. High Court did not entertain other objections.
  Hence the present appeals.
H                               648
 PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI             649
            SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD.

   Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High          A
Court, the Court

     HELD: 1. On a perusal of the various provisions
relating to execution as enshrined under Order XXI CPC,
there is nothing which lays down that premature filing of         8
an execution would entail its rejection. It is not correct to
say that the executing court could not have entertained
the execution proceeding solely because it was instituted
before the expiry of the period stipulated in the
compromise decree despite the factum that by the time             C
the court adverted to the petition, the said period was
over. It is also not correct that the decree had lost its
potentiality of executability having been filed on a
premature date. [paras 10, 15 and 16) [656-E-F; 660-A)

     2. The executing court did not commit any error by D
entertaining the execution petition. The Single Judge in
civil revision has annulled the said order without any
justification. While so doing, he had not dealt with other
objections raised by the Judgment-debtor on the ground
that they are raised for the first time. The matter is remitted E
to the High Court to deal with the objections on merits.
[para 19) [661-F-H; 662-A]

     Vithalbhai (P) Ltd.   v, Union Bank of India 2005 (2) SCR
680 : (2005) 4 SCC 315; Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional   F
Distt. Judge and Ors. 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 380 : (1998) 1
SCC 732; Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives (1971) 3 SCC 124;
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Ors.
2001 (3) SCR 1129 : (2001) 6 sec 534- relied on.
                                                                  G
    Lal Ram v. Hari Ram 1970 (2) SCR 898 : AIR 1970 SC
1093; Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan 1956
SCR 62 : AIR 1956 SC 359; Chen Shen Ling v. Nand
Kishore Jhajharia AIR 1972 SC 726 - distinguished.
                                                                  H
     650      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 '[2012] 2 S.C.R.

A         Anandilal Bhanwarlal v. Kasturi Devi Ganeriwala (1985)
      1 SCC 442; Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Asst.
     ·Comm., Sales Tax, Kanpur 1968 SCR 505 : AIR 1968 SC
      488; State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors. (2000)
      7 SCC 348 : 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 185 • referred to.
B.
                           Case Law Reference:

           2005 (2) SCR 680            Relied on           Para 7

           1970 (2) SCR 898            Distinguished       Para 8

c          1956 SCR 62                 Distinguished       Para 8

           AIR 1972 SC 726             Distinguished       Para 8
                              •
           1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 380 Relied on               Para 12
           (1985) 1 sec 442            Referred to         Para 12
D
           (1971) 3 sec 124            Relied on           Para 13
           1968 SCR 505                Referred to         Para 13
           2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 185 Referred to             Para 14
E
           2001 (3) SCR 1129           Relied on           Para 16

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     8297-8298 of 2004.

F         From the Judgment & Order dated 10.01.2002 &
     07 .03.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil
     Revision No. 341 of 1997 and Review Application No. 38861
     of 2002.

G        Dinesh Dwivedi, Shalini Kumar, Neeru Vaid for the
     Appellant.

        S.K. Dubey, Manoj Prasad, Y. Tiwari, Kushmanjali Sharma,
     Manoj Prasad for the Respondents. .. .

H          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
  PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI                  651
             SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD ..

      DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeals by special leave           A
are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2002
and 07.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 341 of
1997 and Review Application No. 38861 of 2002 respectively.
The facts as uncurtained in the two appeals are that the                B
appellant as plaintiff initiated a civil action forming subject
matter of suit No. 501 of 1995 against the respondent and
others for permanent injunction. In the suit, the parties entered
into a compromise and on the basis of the compromise, a
decree was drawn up on 06.09.1996. The terms and conditions             c
of the compromise were made. a part of the decree. Be it
noted, the compromise between the parties stipulated certain
conditions and one such condition was that within a span of six
months' time, the defendant would pay a certain sum to the
plaintiff'.. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the said clause   0
of the compromise is reproduced hereunder:-

      "That the defendant No. 1 acknowledges and undertakes
     to pay Lacs Rs. 38,38000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs and
     Thirty Eight Thousand) only to the plaintiff within six months
     from the date of this compromise. The payment of the said          E
     amount by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff shall have
     the effect of settling entire claim of the plaintiff as against
     the defendant No. 1 in full and final"

    2. In the petition for compromise which formed a part of            F
the decree, there were other stipulations but they are not
necessary to be stated for the adjudication of these appeals.
As has been indicated earlier, the decree was drawn up on
06.09.1996.
     3. As the first respondent did not honour the terms of the         G
decree, the appellant filed an application for execution of the
decree on 17 .02.1997 and the said application was registered
as Misc. Case No. 9 of 1997. The respondent No. 1 entered
contest and filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') which was registered as         H
    652       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A Misc. Case No. 43 of 1997. Allegations, counter allegations
   and rejoinders were put forth before the Executing Court. One
   of the objections raised in the application under Section 47 of
   the Code was that as the decree holder had moved the
   executing court for execution of the decree prjor to the expiry
B ·of the six months' period, the application was premature and,
   therefore, entire execution proceeding was vitiated being not
  •maintainable. The learned Civil Judge who dealt with the
   executiqn case did not find any merit in any of the objections
   raised and rejected the same. It is worth noting that by the time
c the matter was taken up and the order came to be passed, the
   decree had become mature .for execution. After rejection of the
   objection, the executing court took into consideration the
   submission of the judgment-debtor and, accordingly, directed
   that the entire balance money as agreed to in the compromise
0 should be paid to the decree holder.
       4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the first respondent
  preferred Civil Revision No. 341 of 1997. The learned Single
  Judge noted the contentions and subsequent orders that were
  passed in the execution petition. The revisional court opined
E that no other objection could be raised for the first time in the
  revision and hence, no finding was warranted to be recorded
  on the said score.                                            ·

       5. As far as the premature filing of the execution petition
F is concerned, the learned Single Judge expressed his view as
  under:-

          'The question whether the execution was premature or not
          is to be decided with regard to the date at which the
          execution was filed. If a suit is found to have been filed
G         premature, it cannot be decreed for the reason that the
          period has expired during the pendency of the suit. Similar
          principle will not apply to the execution. If the execution was
          premature when it was filed, it is liable to be rejected and
          cannot be proceeded with because it has prematured
H         during the pendency of the case."
  PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI                    653
     SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     Being of this view, he allowed the revision and set aside            A
the order passed by the learned Civil Judge as a consequence
of which the execution case entailed in dismissal.

    6. We have heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior
counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. K. Dubey, learned Senior            8
counsel for the first respondent.

     7. Criticizing the impugned order passed in Civil Revision,
Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, has contended that when
a suit is premature on the date of its institution and the Court
can grant relief to the plaintiff if no manifest injustice or prejudice   C
is caused to the party proceeded against, there is no reason
or justification for not applying the said principle to an execution
proceeding. It is urged by him that the question of a suit being
premature does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court,
but the Court in its judicial discretion may grant a decree or            D
refuse to do so and, therefore, in the case at hand, when the
executing court had proceeded after the expiry of the stipulated
period in the decree, there was no warrant on the part of the
revisional court to interfere with the same, for the said order
did not suffer from lack of appropriate exercise of jurisdiction          E
or exercise of jurisdiction that the court did not possess. It is
canvassed by him that if the petition filed under Section 47 of
the Code is scrutinized, it will clearly reveal that objections have
been raised in a routine manner to delay the execution
proceeding and such dilatory tactics by a judgment-debtor                 F
should, in all circumstances, be deprecated and decried. In
support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on Vithalbhai
(P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of lndia 1•

     8. Mr. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the first
respondent, per contra, contended that the executing court could          G
not have entertained the application as it was filed prior to the
expiration of the period. In support of his stand, he has placed
reliance on Lal Ram v. Hari Ram 2. The next submission of Mr.

                                                                          H
    654       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A. Dubey is that as the execution was levied in a premature
   , manner before the expiry of the period, the decree lost its
     potentiality of executability. Elaborating the said submission, it
     is canvassed that the compromise decree could not have been
     taken up for the purpose of execution and hence, the objection
B under Section 47 of the Code should have been accepted by
     the executing court, but as it failed to do so, the High Court, in
     exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, has rectified the
     jurisdictional error.

       The learned senior counsel further urged that when the
C compromise decree imposed mutual obligations on both sides
  some of which were conditional, no execution could be ordered
  unless the party seeking execution not only offered to perform
  his part but also satisfied the executing court that he was in a
  position to do so. In essence, the proponement of Mr. Dubey
D is that by levying the execution in a premature manner, the
  stipul~tions in the compromise decree have been totally
  overlooked and the real construction of the terms of the decree
  have been given an indecent burial. To bolster the said
  submissions, he has commended us to the decisions in Jai
E Narqin Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan 3 and Chen Shen
  Ling v. Nand Kishore Jhajharia 4 •

       9. At the very outset, it may be stated that it is an admitted
  position that the execution was levied prior to the expiration of
F the period stipulated in the decree. The executing court, as is
  evident, has addressed itself to all the objections that were
  raised in the application and rejected the same. The principal
  objection relating to the maintainability of the proceeding on the
  foundation that it was instituted prematurely did not find favour
G with it. The learned Single Judge has observed that if an
  execution is premature when it is filed, it is liable to be rejected.
  Mr. Dwivedi has drawn an analogy between a premature suit
  and prematur~ execution by placing heavy reliance on the
                      '   '~

    3.   AIR 1956 SC 359:
H   4.   AIR 1972 'SC 726.
  PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI                 655
     SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
authority in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. (supra). In Vithalbhai (supra), A
while dealing with the premature filing of a suit, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court, after referring to a number of decisions of
various High Courts and this Court, came to hold as follows:-

    "The question of suit being premature does not go to the
                                                                        8
    root of jurisdiction ofthe court; the court entertaining such
    a suit and passing decree therein is not acting without
    jurisdiction but it is in the judicial discretion of the court to
    grant decree or not. The court would examine whether any
    irreparable prejudice was caused to the defendant on
    account of the suit having been filed a little before the date      C
    on which the plaintiff's entitlement to relief became due and
    whether by granting the relief in such suit a manifest
    injustice would be caused to the defendant. Taking into
    consideration the explanation offered by the plaintiff for
    filing the suit before the date of maturity of cause of action,     D
    the court may deny the plaintiff his costs or may make such
    other order adjusting equities and satisfying the ends of
    justice as it may deem fit in its discretion. The conduct of
    the parties and unmerited advantage to the plaintiff or
    disadvantage amounting to prejudice to the defendant, if            E
    any, would be relevant factors."

     After so stating, the Bench ruled that the plea as regards
the maintainability of the suit on the ground of its being
premature should be promptly raised and it will be equally the          F
responsibility of the Court to dispose of such a plea. Thereafter,
it was observed as follows:-

     "However, the court shall not exercise its discretion in
     favour of decreeing a premature suit in the following cases:
     (i) when there is a mandatory bar created by a statute G
     which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before
     a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event;
     (ii) when the institution of the suit before the lapse of a
     particular time or occurrence of a particular event would
     have the effect of defeating a public policy or public H
    656       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A         purpose; (iii) if such premature institution renders the
           presentation itself patently void and the invalidity is
           incurable such as when it goes to the root of the court's
          jurisdiction; and (iv) where the /is is not confined to parties
           alone and affects and involves persons other than those
B          arrayed as parties, such as in an election petition which
           affects and involves the entire constituency. (See Samar
           Singh v. Kedar Nath 13.) One more category of suits which
          may be added to the above, is: where leave of the court
          or some authority is mandatorily required to be obtained
c         before the institution of the suit and was not so obtained."

                                                 [Emphasis Supplied]

          10. We have referred to the aforesaid dictum in extenso
    as we find that the Bench has given emphasis on various
D   aspects, narriely, an issue getting into the root of the jurisdiction
    of the Court; causing of irreparable and manifest injustice;
    adjustment of equities; concept of statutory bar; presentation
    that invites a void action and anything that affects the rights of
    the other party; and obtaining of leave of the Court or authority
E   where it is a mandatory requirement, etc. On a perusal of the
    various provisions (elating to execution as enshrined under
    Order XXI of the Code, we do not find anything which lays
    down that premature filing of an execution would entail its
    rejection. The principles that have been laid down for filing of
F   a premature suit, in our considered opinion, do throw certain
    light while dealing with an application for execution that is filed
    prematurely and we are disposed to think that the same can
    safely be applied to the case at hand.

         11. Presently, we shall advert to the submission of Mr.
G   Dubey that the executing court could not have entertained the
    application as it was filed before the expiration of the period.
    The learned senior counsel has relied on the decision rendered
    in Lala Ram (supra). In the said case, an order of acquittal
    passed -by the learned Magistrate was assailed before the
H   High Court by seeking leave under Section 417(3) of the Code
     PUSH PA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI            657
        SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the High Court granted leave          A
as a consequence of which the appeal came to be filed
eventually. The High Court accepted the appeal and convicted
the accused. It was contended before this Court that the a;:ipeal
could not have been entertained by the High Court having been
filed beyond the expiry of sixty days in view of the language         e
employed under Section 417(4) of the Code. Emphasis was
laid on the term "entertain". Repelling the contention, this court
held as follows: -

             "The learned counsel also suggests that the word
       "entertain" which occurs in Section 417 {4) means "to deal C
       with or hear" and in this connection he relies on the
       judgment of this Court in Lakshmi Rattan Engineering
       Works v. Asst. Commr., Sa/es Tax, (1968) 1 SCR 505        =
       (AIR 1968 SC 488). It seems to us that in this context
       "entertain" means "file or received by the Court" and it has C
       no reference to the actual hearing of the application for
       leave to appeal; otherwise the result would be that in many
       cases applications for leave to appeal would be barred
       because the applications have not been put up for hearing
       before the High Court within 60 days of the order of E
       acquittal"

On a perusal of the aforesaid passage, it is vivid that the three-
Judge Bench interpreted the terms· 'were entertained' in the
context they were used under the old Code and did not accept          F
the submission 'to deal with or hear'. Regard being had to the
context, we have no shadow of doubt that the said decision is
distinguishable and not applicable to the obtaining factual
matrix.

     12. In this context, we may refer with profit to the two-Judge   G
Bench decision in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional Distt.
Judge and others5. In the said Case, the Court was interpreting
the language employed in the proviso to Section 21(1) of the
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
s.    (1998) 1 sec 732                                                H
    658       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 2 S.C.R.


A Act, 1972. The proviso stipulated that where the building was
  in occupation of a tenant before its purchase by the landlord,
  such purchase being made after the commencement of the Act,
  no application shall be entertained on the grounds mentioned
  in Clause (a) of the said Section unless three years' period had
B lapsed since the date of purchase. A contention was
  canvassed that filing of an application before the expiry of the
  three years' period was barred by the provision contained in
  the said proviso. Repelling the said submission, the. Bench
  opined thus: -
c         "It must be kept in view that the proviso nowhere lays down
          that no application on the grounds mentioned in clause (a)
          of Section 21(1) could be "instituted" within a period of
          three years from the date of purchase. On the contrary, the
          proviso lays down that such application on the said
D         grounds cannot be "entertained" by the authority before the
          expiry of that period. Consequently it is not possible to
          agree with the extreme contention canvassed by the
          learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that such an
          application could not have been filed at all within the said
E         period of three years." ·

         After so stating, the Bench distinguished the decision
    rendered in Ananr:Jilal Bhanwarlal v. Kasturi Devi Ganeriwa/a 6
    which dealt with "institution" and eventually came to hold as
F   follows: -
          "Thus the word "entertain" mentioned in the first proviso to
          Section 21(1) in connection with grounds mentioned in
          clause (a) would necessarily mean entertaining the ground
          for consideration for the purpose of adjudication on merits
G         and not at any stage prior thereto as tried to be submitted
          by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Rao, for the appellant.
          Neither at the stage at which
                                      I
                                          the application is filed in the
          office of the authority nor at the stage when summons is-

H 6. (1985) 1 sec 442
      PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. v. GANGOTRI            659
         SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

        issued to the tenant the question of entertaining such        A
        application by the prescribed authority would arise. for
        consideration.

       13. In this context, we may usefully refer to the decision in
  Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (Dead) 8
  Through Legal Representatives7• In the said case, this Court
  was interpreting Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
  Procedure as amended by the Allahabad High Court. The
  amended proviso to Rule 90 stipulated the circumstances under
  which no application to set aside the sale shall be entertained. C
  It was contended before this Court that the expression
  "entertain" found in the proviso referred to the initiation of the
  proceedings and not to the stage when the Court had taken up ·
  the application for· consideration. This Court referred to the
  earlier decision in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v.
  Asst. Comm., Sales Tax, Kanpur8 and opined that the D
  expression "entertain" conveys the meaning "adjudicate upon" .
· or "proceed to consider on merits".

        14. In State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Others9 ,
 this Court was dealing with Section 39 (5) of the Haryana            E
 General Sales Tax Act, 1973 which stipulated that no appeal
 shall be entertained unless it is filed within sixty days from the
 date of the order appealed against and the appellate authority
 was satisfied that the amount of tax assessed and the penalty
 and interest, if any, recoverable from the persons had been          F
 paid. The Bench interpreting the term "entertainment" of the
 appeal ruled that when the first proviso to Section 39 (5)
 speaks of the "entertainment of the appeal", it means that the
 appeal will not be admitted for consideration unless there is
 satisfactory proof available of the making of the deposit of         G
 admitted tax.


 1.    (1971) 3 sec 124.
 8.    AIR 1968 SC 488.
 9.    (2000) 1 sec 348                                               H
    660       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                . [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A       15. In view of the aforesaid authorities in the field, the
  submission of Mr. Dubey that the executing court could not have
  entertained the execution proceeding solely because it was
  instituted before the expiry of the period stipulated in the
  compromised decree despite the factum that by the time the
B Court adverted to the petition the said period was over, is
  absolutely unacceptable.

       16. The next limb of proponement of Mr. Dubey is that the
  decree had lost its potentiality of executability having been filed
C on a premature date. On a first flush, the aforesaid submission
  looks quite attractive but on a deeper probe and keener
  scrutiny, it melts into insignificance. In Dhurandhar Prasad
  Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Others 10 , while dealing
  with the power of the executing court under Section 47 of the
  Code of Civil Procedure, a two-Judge Bench has expressed
D thus:-

          "The exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code is
          microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole. Thus
          it is plain that executing court can allow objection under
E         Section 47 of the Code to the executability of the decree
          if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a nullity,
          apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of
          execution under law either because the same was passed
          in ignorance of such a provision of law or the law was
F         promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its
          passing"

          17. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principle, it is
    difficult to accept the stand that the decree had become
    inexecutable, and, accordingly, we repel the same.
G
         18. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has
    further propounded that the executing court could not have
    passed any order on the application for execution as it was filed

H 10. (2001) 6 sec 534.
  PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMIT! LTD. v. GANGOTRI                661
     SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

prior to the expiry of the period. Pyramiding the said                A
submission, it is urged by him that such advertence in an
execution proceeding frustrates the construction of the terms
of the decree. Mr. Dubey has drawn immense inspiration from
the verdict in Chen Shen Ling (supra). On a careful perusal of
the aforesaid decision, it is plain and patent that the three-Judge   B
Bench had dealt with the consideration of the terms of the
decree and eventually, placing reliance on the decision in Jai
Narain Ram Lundia (supra), expressed the view that rio
execution can be ordered unless the party seeking execution
not only offered to perform his part but, also when objection was     c
taken, satisfied the executing court that he was in a position to
do so. Be it noted, in the case Jai Narain Ram Lundia (supra),
this Court has adverted to the reciprocal application, their inter-
linking and the indivisibility of the terms of the decree and
opined that the executing court cannot go behind the decree
and it cannot defeat the directions in the decree. In both the        D
decisions, the issue pertained to the nature of order to be
passed by the executing court or the type of direction to be
issued by it. The ratio enunciated therein does not remotely
deal with the filing of an execution petition in respect of a
compromise decree prior to the expiry of the date as stipulated       E
in the terms and conditions of the decree. Hence, we have no
 scintilla of doubt that the said authorities do not support the
stand so vehemently put forth by Mr. Dubey, learned senior
counsel for the first respondent.
                                                                      F
      19. In view of our aforesaid premised reasons, we arrive
at the irresistible conclusion that the executing court did not
commit any error by entertaining the execution petition. The .
learned Single Judge in civil revision has annulled the said
order without any justification. While so doing, he had not dealt G
with other objections raised by the Judgment-debtor on the
ground that they are raised for the first time. On a query being
made, Mr Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
fairly stated that the said objections were raised in a different
manner in the objection filed under Section 47 of the Code and H
     662      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 2 S.C.R.

    A the revisional court should have been well advised to deal with
      the same on merits. Regard being had to the aforesaid analysis,
      we set aside the order passed in civil revision and remit the
      matter to the High Court to deal with the objections on merits.
      As it is an old matter, we request the learned Chief Justice of
    B the High Court of Allahabad to nominate a learned Judge to
      dispose of the civil revision within a period of six months. It is
  ., hereby made clear that the parties shall not seek unnecessary
I
      adjournment before the revisional court and should cooperate
      so that the revision shall be disposed of within the timeframe.
 c        20. Consequently, the appeals are allowed to the extent
     indicated hereinabove leaving the parties to bear their
     respective costs.

     K.K.T.                                         Appeals allowed.