Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC | Civil Suit For Specific Performance Cannot Bypass Execution Proceedings When Breach Of Lok Adalat Compromise Is Alleged: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"In case, there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise, as entered between the parties on 14.12.2024, the learned executing Court is well within its power to get the sale deed executed." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a party cannot maintain a fresh civil suit seeking temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property when an execution petition for the enforcement of a prior Lok Adalat compromise regarding the same subject matter is already pending.

A bench of Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj observed that a plaintiff who fails to adhere to the timelines stipulated in a compromise decree cannot seek interim relief based on a fresh cause of action that essentially seeks to bypass the executing court's jurisdiction.

The petitioner had entered into a compromise with the respondent before a Lok Adalat on 14th December 2024, agreeing to clear a mortgage loan within one month to facilitate the execution of a sale deed. Upon failing to deposit the amount within the stipulated timeframe, the petitioner filed a fresh civil suit challenging a subsequent sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of a third party, while also seeking an injunction. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed his plea for interim relief, noting his failure to comply with the original compromise terms.

The primary question before the court was whether a fresh suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable when a compromise decree remains enforceable through execution proceedings. The court was also called upon to determine whether the failure to comply with the timelines of a Lok Adalat award disentitles a party from claiming a prima facie case for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

Nature of Execution Proceedings

The Court reiterated that execution proceedings are specifically designed to enforce the mandates of a decree or award. Where a compromise is reached before a Lok Adalat, the resulting award holds the status of a decree. Consequently, if a party alleges a breach of such an agreement, the appropriate legal recourse is to move the executing court, which possesses the plenary power to enforce the terms, rather than instituting a parallel, fresh suit to frustrate subsequent transactions.

Court Explains Failure to Establish Prima Facie Case

Regarding the petitioner's argument that the courts below adopted a "hyper-technical approach" due to a four-day delay in payment, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the fundamental tripartite test for injunctions. Without establishing a clear prima facie case, the balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, the court cannot grant discretionary relief. The petitioner's own non-compliance with the time-bound mandate of the compromise precluded him from asserting a right to immediate interim protection.

"The petitioner/plaintiff before the learned trial Court, had not carved out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to be caused to him, on which the Court is to grant interim relief of injunction."

Limitations of Revisional Jurisdiction

The Court emphasized that its role under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. Finding that the lower courts had correctly applied the law and reached a logical conclusion based on the facts presented, the bench declined to interfere. It underscored that the trial court remains competent to adjudicate the validity of the subsequent sale deed in the main suit, provided the petitioner proves his case during the trial, but he cannot use a fresh suit to bypass the existing execution process.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the lower courts' orders. However, the bench issued a critical caveat, clarifying that the observations made in the present order would not influence the merits of the pending execution petition or the outcome of the civil suit itself, ensuring that the trial court retains full independence in the final adjudication.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026