1. WAZIR SHAKEEL AHMED, J.--- The appellant through this civil 1st appeal has called in question the judgment/order dated 10/04/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Puniyal/Ishkoman in execution petition No.27/2012 where by the objections of the present appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that the parties to the above entered into a contract agreement vide which appellant Bahadur shall agreed to execute a construction project for respondent Rehman Shah Govt. contractor for a sum of rupees mentioned in the contract agreement to be paid 2,10,0000/- to be paid in instalment, but the said construction work was not completed within the stipulated period in the result of which appellant named above filed a recovery suit against the respondent in the court of competent jurisdiction. During the pendency of the above suit the parties entered into a compromise effected through arbitrators, according to which present appellant/plaintiff was held liable to pay Rs.4,00000/- to the present respondent out of which Rs.2,00000/- was to be paid to the arbitrators for further deliverance to the respondent/ defendant, while the remaining amount was to be paid to the respondent in two equally instalments of Rs.100,000/- each under conditions mentioned in the said compromise deed. According to which the first instalment of remaining amount of Rs.100,000/- was to be paid to the respondent after the completion of doors, windows and sanitary fittings etc and the last instalment remaining Rs.100,000 was to be to the present respondent after completion of the work by him who was supposed to be completed within of two months reckoned from the payment of above first installment of Rs.2,00000/- and incase of failure on the part of respondent. The present appellant was held entitled to receive back Rs.400,000/ - from the respondent. It was also provided in the above compromise deed that in case of failure of the present appellant to pay Rs.200,000/- to respondent he shall be liable to pay Rs.800/- per day in the shape of labour cost to respondent.
3. The present appellant afterward filed execution petition before the executing court for recovery of Rs.4,00000/- against the respondent with the contention that he is entitled to get the above amount of Rs.4,00000/- from the respondent because of the failure of the present respondent to complete and handover the project to the appellant as per compromise deed.
4. We have heard the learned for the parties at length and also gone through the record of case during the course of which it was painfully observed that the learned court did not apply his judicious mind to the facts and law involved in the present case and disposed off the objections of the respondent in a slip shod manner. It was the primary duty of executing court to carefully look upon the contents of the compromise deed dated 05-3-2012 vide which both the parties to the suit were under obligation to act upon the terms of the compromise deed and was also duty bond to ascertain that which of the rival parties of the compromise deed has actually defaulted the compromise and should have decided the execution petition in the light of the same as the learned Judge as Executing Court had got all powers to adjudicate the matter in the light of available with special reference to the executibility of the alleged compromise decree in the particular circumstances of the case under section 47 of C.P.C.
5. In the light of what has been stated above we are inclined to accept this civil 1st appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 10-4-2013 by remanding the matter back to the lower court with the direction to proceed with the matter in the light of our above findings under the provisions of section 47, C.P.C. The parties shall also be directed to appear before the Executing Court on 28-4- 2017.