Can Execution Proceedings Under Article 227 Be Settled Through a Compromise During Challenge to Attachment Orders? — Reaffirmation of Existing Law on Settlement in Execution Petitions

Settlement between judgment debtor and decree holder before the High Court is permitted and, upon consensus, the High Court may modify execution schedules and set aside attachment orders subject to terms. The judgment reaffirms and applies established principles regarding consensual resolution and the High Court’s supervisory powers; binding on subordinate courts within the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name CR/785/2023 of RAJINDER SINGH DECEASED TH LR SUKPREET SINGH Vs DALBIR KUMAR
CNR PHHC010097242023
Date of Registration 02-02-2023
Decision Date 30-10-2025
Disposal Nature DISPOSED OF
Judgment Author MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Court High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Precedent Value Binding within jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court
Type of Law Civil Procedure / Execution Proceedings
Questions of Law Whether execution proceedings and attachment orders can be modified/settled by the High Court under Article 227 based on a compromise between parties.
Ratio Decidendi
  • Where parties to an execution proceeding reach a consensus, the High Court (under Article 227) has the authority to settle, structure payments, and suspend or recall attachment orders on agreed terms.
  • Such a consensual disposal satisfies the judgment and decree if the agreed payments are made, and may conditionally protect attached property from auction.
  • Failure to comply with the compromise may revive attachment and also attract penal consequences.
  • This approach encourages settlement and reduces litigation, reaffirming the supervisory and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court in execution proceedings.
Facts as Summarised by the Court Petition filed under Article 227 seeking to set aside an attachment order from the Executing Court; compromise reached during proceedings whereby petitioner agreed to payment schedule and the respondent consented to suspension of property auction, contingent on compliance.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Persuasive For Other High Courts regarding exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in execution proceedings when compromise reached

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • High Court expressly structured an execution settlement and payment schedule upon party consensus during proceedings under Article 227.
  • Pending property auction may be stayed on recording a compromise and agreed payments, with completion of payments satisfying the decree.
  • Non-compliance after compromise can result in contempt proceedings in addition to execution revival.
  • Affidavit requirements for compliance placed on the judgment debtor before the Executing Court for enforcement of terms.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The High Court allowed restoration of the revision petition upon application supported by affidavit under Section 151 CPC.
  • Parties, through counsel, reached a consensual settlement addressing payment of the decree amount in staged installments, with partial payment made before the court.
  • The judgment records and validates the mutual settlement and details a structured timeline for compliance.
  • Court holds that execution and auction proceedings may be suspended, provided parties comply with the agreed payment schedule.
  • The court further imposes dual consequences for default—revival of attachment and the possibility of contempt proceedings—ensuring seriousness of consent orders.
  • The role of the affidavit ensures enforceability and formal commitment before the Executing Court.
  • All pending applications are disposed of in view of the recorded settlement.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Ready to pay a substantial portion (Rs. 5,00,000/-) of the decree immediately with proof (demand draft).
  • Willing to pay the balance amount in installments and requests stay on the auction of property.

Respondent

  • Acknowledged receipt of the draft and concurred in the compromise amount and payment schedule.

Factual Background

A revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the Executing Court’s order issuing warrants of attachment against the petitioner’s property in relation to a civil decree. During High Court proceedings, parties negotiated a compromise: the petitioner (through legal representative) agreed to clear the outstanding amount in staged payments, with an upfront sum paid in court and the balance scheduled over several months. The pending auction of the petitioner’s property was stayed in line with the agreement.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 151 CPC: Used for restoration and recall of previous High Court order; the application was allowed based on affidavit support.
  • Article 227 Constitution of India: High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to modify and structure execution based on compromise.
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Provides for proceedings against the petitioner in case of default on the settlement terms stipulated by the High Court’s order in execution.

Procedural Innovations

  • The High Court provided an explicit mechanism for stay of auction and disposal of execution proceedings upon a party compromise, coupled with affidavit filing and detailed compliance timelines.
  • Inclusion of direct consequences (execution revival and contempt) within the consent order for enforcement.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms the High Court’s authority to supervise, stay, and dispose of execution proceedings upon settlement between parties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.