In Brief
A landlord sought to execute a consent order for obtaining vacant possession of a residential property from a tenant who had agreed to vacate by a specified date but failed to do so. The trial court never drew a formal decree after recording the compromise; it only passed a compromise order. When the landlord filed an execution petition, the tenant challenged its maintainability on the ground that no formal decree existed. The High Court upheld this objection and dismissed the execution petition. The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that a consent order is capable of supporting an execution petition even without a formal decree at the time of filing. The principle that a judgment has the effect of a decree for execution purposes until the formal decree is drawn applies to execution applications as well as appeals. The tenant's objections were frivolous and rightfully rejected. The Court reduced the cost imposed on the tenant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 and directed the trial court to draw the formal decree as a purely procedural step.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.