Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 21-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan (son of late V. Ramanathan) and Mrs. G. Nithya (wife of R. Gopalakrishnan), residing at Door No.17/1 2nd Narayanan Street, Sevenwells, Chennai 600001.
  • Respondent: M/s. Quality Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director A. Ganesh Rajah, office at No.558, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.
  • The application (A. No. 2327 of 2026 in E.P. No. 83 of 2024) was filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the executability of a compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2021, dated 07.02.2023.
  • Under the compromise decree, the judgment‑debtors admitted liability to pay Rs.80,00,000, of which Rs.70,00,000 had already been paid, leaving a balance of Rs.10,00,000. The decree‑holder filed the execution petition for the alleged balance of Rs.10,00,000 together with interest at 24% per annum, seeking attachment and sale of immovable property.
  • Both parties agreed that as of 10.06.2023 the amount payable under Clause 2 of the decree was Rs.10,78,320. The execution petition claimed this amount plus interest, totalling Rs.13,01,150.
  • Applicants relied on a letter of undertaking dated 10.06.2023, asserting that they had agreed to discharge CMWSSB charges of Rs.5,78,320, which were originally payable by defendants 2 and 4 under Clause 7 of the decree.
  • Applicants also contested the 24% interest, stating that they had paid Rs.2,50,000 towards a CMWSSB demand of Rs.7,31,168 (demand notice dated 24.06.2024) and an additional Rs.50,000 on 26.08.2025, thereby reducing the balance to Rs.2,97,152.
  • Respondent argued that the letter of undertaking constituted a subsequent adjustment of the compromise decree and, because it was neither certified nor recorded under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC, the executing court could not recognise it.
  • The Court examined four key questions: (1) whether the letter of undertaking could be treated as a certified adjustment; (2) whether CMWSSB charges liability rested with defendants 2 and 4 or was assumed by the judgment‑debtors; (3) the exact amount currently due; and (4) whether the application should be allowed.
  • The Court held that under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC, any out‑of‑court payment or adjustment must be certified to the executing court; an uncertified adjustment cannot be recognised. It cited Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373 to affirm the separation of powers between Section 47 CPC and Order XXI Rule 2.
  • Since no application was made to have the 10‑06‑2023 undertaking recorded or certified, the Court could not allow it to vary the decree.
  • Consequently, the liability for CMWSSB charges and property tax remains with defendants 2 and 4 as per Clause 7 of the compromise decree.
  • The amount due as on 01.08.2024 was Rs.13,01,150 (principal Rs.10,00,000 + interest Rs.3,01,150). A payment of Rs.50,000 made on 26.08.2025 is to be credited.
  • After crediting the Rs.50,000, the balance recoverable is Rs.12,51,150, which remains payable by the judgment‑debtors together with any further interest provided for in the decree.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the execution petition (A. No. 2327 of 2026) and ordered that the plaintiffs/judgment‑debtors pay the remaining sum of Rs.12,51,150, with interest as stipulated, and awarded no costs.

Topics: Execution of Decree, Civil Procedure