Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DR. GHANSHYAM JAISWAL versus KAMAL SINGH

Decided
16 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 759 · 1996 INSC 272

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 759, margin E

Though the respondent has been served by dasti, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel. The facts are eloquent. In a suit for ejectment filed on April 5, 1984, the respondent had entered into a compromise on foot of which the decree for eviction was granted after recording the compromise and evidence. The respondent did not deliver the possession of the demised property in terms of the compromise decree. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to lay execution for possession of the property. In the first round of litigation, the respondent had challenged under section 47 of the C.P.C. impugning the validity of the compromise decree which was turned down by the executing Court. The High Court dismissed W.P. No. 2849of1994 by order dated August 19, 1994. Against the respondent laid another objection under Section 47 contending that the decree is vague and incapable of being executed. That was turned down by the executing Court on September 30, 1994. Against that, the respondent filed a revision in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order allowed the revision by order dated June 21, 1995 in C.R. No. 1252/94 since the counsel for the appellant had reported no instructions.

pp. 759–760, margin F

The only question is : whether the respondent is entitled to raise the plea of vagueness? Having entered into the compromise and suffered a decree on foot of compromise and also having raised the plea of non-executability of the compromise decree and having become unsuccessful, he is precluded by constructive res judicata, of might and ought in Explanation VI to Section 11, to raise any other plea of the executability of the decree. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision and setting aside the Execution application.

p. 760, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appellant is at liberty to have the decree executed with the assistance of the police. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 760, margin C