1 CGHC010163472026 2026:CGHC:28074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 507 of 2026 1 - Anil Dubey S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Dubey Aged About 58 Years R/o Flat No. 3, Palash Complex, Maruti Vihar, Mohoba Bazar, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Usha Singh D/o Shivkaran Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Flat No. 504, Barsana Enclave, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranay Golchha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 07/07/2026 The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 28.02.2026 and 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Execution Case No. 09/2025, whereby the learned executing Court issued a warrant of possession in 2 respect of the subject flat in execution of the compromise decree dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 187 of 2019. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the compromise decree dated 12.07.2022, the petitioner had undertaken to hand over vacant possession of the subject flat to his daughter, Rishika Dubey, on or before 31.12.2022, and only in the event of his failure to do so, respondent No.2 was granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings. It is contended that the compromise specifically envisaged delivery of possession to Rishika Dubey, whereas the present execution proceedings have been initiated by her mother, the present respondent, seeking possession of the subject flat. It is further submitted that despite the objections raised by the petitioner before the executing Court, warrants of possession came to be issued by the impugned orders dated 28.02.2026 and 30.03.2026. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the terms of the compromise by delivering vacant possession of the flat to his daughter, Rishika Dubey. Therefore, according to him, the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent are not maintainable and the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders and submits that the compromise itself stipulated that in the event the petitioner failed to hand over vacant possession of the subject flat by 31.12.2022, the respondent would be at liberty to initiate 3 appropriate proceedings. Since the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, the respondent rightly initiated execution proceedings, pursuant to which the executing Court issued the warrant of possession. It is, therefore, submitted that the executing Court has merely enforced the compromise decree passed by the Division Bench of this Court and no illegality or jurisdictional error can be attributed to the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The compromise decree dated 12.07.2022, passed by the Division Bench of this Court on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, is not in dispute. The settlement dated 27.06.2022, recorded before the Mediation Centre of this Court, specifically provides that the petitioner (Party No.1) shall hand over vacant possession of the subject flat to his daughter, Rishika Dubey, on or before 31.12.2022, failing which the respondent (Party No.2) shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for enforcement of the settlement. Ther relevant part of the terms of compromise dated 27.06.2022 is necessary to notice here which reads as under: “pwafd ijofj’k dh laiw.kZ ftEesnkjh i{kdkj dz-2 ys jghs gS blfy, mDr ¶ySV dks _f”kdk nqcs dh lgefr ls ns[kHkky dh ftEesnkjh ysxhA ;fm mDr ¶ySV fdjk;s ij fn;k tkrk gS rks fdjk;s dh jkf’k fdjk;snkj lh/ks _f”kdk nqcs ds [kkrs esa tek djsxkA ;fn mDr ¶ySV cspk tk;sxk rks vspus ij izkIr jkf’k dk mi;ksx i{kdkj dz-2 rFkk iq=h _f”kdk nqcs vkilh lgefr ls djsaxsA Hkfo”; esa mlds fookg ,oa mPp f’k{kk dh ftEesnkjh dk fuoZgu Hkh i{kdkj dz-2 Lo;a djsaxhA mDr ¶ySV dks 4 i{kdkj dz-1 31-12-2022 ds iwoZ [kkyh dj nsaxs rFkk ¶ySV dh pkch iq=h _f”kdk nqcs dks lkSai nsaxsA ;fn i{kdkj dzekad 1 mDr ¶ySV dks 31-12-2022 rd [kkyh djds pkch iq=h _f”kdk nqcs dks ugha lkSaisaxs rks i{kdkj dzekad 2 mfpr U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k djus ds fy, Lora= gksxhA” 6. A perusal of the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned executing Court reveals that the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid condition of the compromise. His only objection is that possession can be delivered only to his daughter, Rishika Dubey, and not to the present respondent. Significantly, the petitioner has neither challenged nor questioned the validity of the terms and conditions of the compromise decree. Consequently, he remains bound by the obligations flowing therefrom, including the obligation to hand over vacant possession of the subject flat. 7. The respondent initiated execution proceedings only after the petitioner failed to obey the terms of the compromise. In the considered opinion of this Court, the mere fact that the execution proceedings have been initiated by the respondent instead of the daughter does not render the proceedings untenable. The settlement dated 27.06.2022 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, and the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the event of non- compliance was expressly conferred upon the respondent. Therefore, whether possession is ultimately delivered to the daughter, Rishika Dubey, or through the respondent in execution of the decree, the substance and object of the compromise remain unaffected. 5 8. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, the documents placed on record, the terms of the compromise decree and the orders passed by the learned executing Court, this Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders dated 28.02.2026 and 30.03.2026 warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.09 10:57:51 +0530