Arbitration Clause in a Compromise Decree: When Must an Executing Court Stop and Send the Dispute to Arbitration?

MP High Court Sets Aside Refusal to Refer an Execution Dispute to Arbitration in Jaipaldas Rajdev v. Varsha Agarwal

Arbitration Appeal No. 265 of 2025  |  Decided 2 September 2026  |  MP High Court, Jabalpur

Introduction

A landlord and tenant settle an eviction suit. The settlement is recorded by a civil court and becomes a compromise decree. Years later, a dispute breaks out over money the tenant allegedly owes under that very decree, and the landlord moves to execute it. The tenant says wait, the decree itself says any dispute between us goes to an arbitrator, not to the executing court. Who is right?

This is precisely the question the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, answered in Jaipaldas Rajdev v. Varsha Agarwal and Others, Arbitration Appeal No. 265 of 2025, decided on 2 September 2026 by Hon’ble Justice Deepak Khot. The ruling is a useful reminder for landlords, tenants, decree holders and judgment debtors alike: an arbitration clause tucked inside a compromise decree does not disappear once the decree is passed, and it can still control how a later dispute over that decree is resolved, even at the execution stage.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to an eviction suit filed by the respondent landlord, registered as Civil Suit No. 490-A/2009. The parties amicably settled the suit, and the III Additional Judge to the I Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhopal, recorded the settlement and passed a compromise decree on 17 February 2012.

The compromise decree contained two important features relevant to this appeal:

• A stipulation for compensatory amount or mesne profits, payable at Rs. 2,000 per day for six months if the appellant tenant did not complete construction within a year, and thereafter at Rs. 5,000 per day until construction was completed.
• An arbitration clause, under which any dispute arising between the parties in connection with or in relation to the compromise agreement was to be decided by an arbitrator agreed upon by the parties.

The landlord later filed an execution application under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the executing court, seeking to recover the compensatory amount on the footing that the tenant had failed to complete construction within the stipulated time.

In response, the tenant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, contending that whether he owed the compensatory amount at all was a disputed question falling squarely within the arbitration clause, and that the executing court should refer the matter to arbitration before proceeding further. His case was that construction could not begin for reasons not attributable to him, so no liability had actually accrued.

The 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhopal, dismissed the tenant’s Section 8 application on 11 August 2025 in Ex.A. No. 16/2024, holding that merely filing an application under Section 8 does not oust the executing court’s jurisdiction to proceed with execution. The tenant challenged that order before the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Question Before the High Court

The core issue was narrow but significant: where a compromise decree contains both a payment obligation and an arbitration clause covering disputes arising from the agreement, can the executing court decide a disputed question of liability itself, or must it first send that question to arbitration under Section 8?

Arguments of the Parties

For the Appellant (Tenant)

It was argued that the dispute over whether the compensatory amount had become payable was a live, contested question, since construction had allegedly not started for reasons beyond the tenant’s control. Allowing the executing court to decide this question on the strength of the payment clause, while ignoring the arbitration clause in the very same decree, would render Section 8 meaningless. The matter, it was submitted, ought to have been referred to the arbitrator before execution proceeded.

For the Respondent (Landlord)

The landlord opposed the application, arguing that an execution application under Order XXI Rule 11 CPC was validly filed to enforce a clear payment stipulation, that the delay in construction was attributable to the tenant’s own lethargy in obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation, and that the trial court had correctly held that a mere Section 8 application does not bar the executing court’s jurisdiction.

The High Court’s Analysis

Justice Khot began by noting that the existence of the compromise decree dated 17 February 2012 was not in dispute. On a plain reading of that decree, the Court found that it contained both a clause for mesne profits or compensation for delayed construction and a separate arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties.

The appellant’s claim that he never got possession to start construction, and the respondent’s counter that the delay was due to the appellant’s own failure to secure timely municipal permission, were found to be genuinely disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication. The Court held that unless this issue was first adjudicated in terms of the arbitration clause, permitting the executing court to proceed on the strength of the other clauses of the same compromise decree would render the very purpose of Section 8 otiose.

“Unless that issue is adjudicated in terms of Clause 7 of the compromise decree, allowing the executing court to proceed on the basis of other clauses of the same agreement would render the very provision of Section 8 otiose.”

The Court also addressed the respondent’s apprehension that a reference to arbitration would deprive a decree-holding landlord of the fruits of a decree through prolonged litigation. It clarified that referring the disputed question to arbitration does not curtail the respondent’s right to execute the compromise decree at all. It simply means the disputed question of liability is adjudicated by the arbitrator first, within a time-bound process, after which the executing court is free to proceed.

Key Precedents Relied Upon

The Court grounded its reasoning in two well-established decisions of the Supreme Court of India.

P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539

The Supreme Court had held that the language of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is peremptory. Where an arbitration agreement exists and covers the dispute, the court is obliged to refer the parties to arbitration, and nothing further remains for the court to decide in the original proceeding, apart from making the reference.

Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532

The Supreme Court clarified what amounts to a waiver of the right to seek arbitration. Filing a written statement, or any statement, application or affidavit that shows an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction on the substance of the dispute, can amount to such a waiver. However, contesting an application for interim relief, such as a temporary injunction or appointment of a receiver, does not by itself amount to a waiver, since that is done only to avoid an adverse interim order, not to submit the main dispute to the court.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the appellant had approached the executing court under Section 8 to refer the very dispute raised in the execution proceedings to arbitration, in terms of the clauses of the same compromise decree that was sought to be executed. The executing court, the High Court held, ought to have referred the matter to arbitration.

The Judgment

The High Court set aside the order dated 11 August 2025 passed by the 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhopal, in Ex.A. No. 16/2024, and allowed the tenant’s application under Section 8. The executing court was directed to appoint an independent arbitrator to decide the dispute within a stipulated timeframe, following which the execution proceedings would resume. The Court clarified that if the arbitrator finds the delay attributable to the tenant, the landlord would be entitled to the claimed amount together with arrears. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is directly relevant to a fact pattern that recurs often in landlord-tenant, family settlement, and commercial disputes across Madhya Pradesh: a suit settled by compromise, a decree that mixes substantive obligations with an arbitration clause, and a later fight over execution.

• Landlords and decree holders should know that an arbitration clause inside a compromise decree remains enforceable and can require a pause in execution, though it does not defeat their right to eventually execute the decree.
• Tenants and judgment debtors facing execution of a compromise decree that contains an arbitration clause have a real remedy under Section 8, provided they raise it before submitting to the court’s jurisdiction on the merits of the dispute.
• Parties drafting compromise decrees and settlement agreements, whether in eviction suits, family disputes, or commercial matters, should think carefully about whether an arbitration clause is appropriate, and if so, draft it and the substantive obligations so they work together rather than at cross purposes.
• Merely opposing an interim application, such as one for injunction or receiver, does not amount to waiving the right to later invoke arbitration under Section 8.
• Timing matters. A Section 8 application should be filed at the earliest possible stage, before any statement, application or affidavit is filed that could be read as submitting to the jurisdiction of the court on the substance of the dispute.

When You May Need to Consult an Advocate

Situations of this kind are more common than they first appear, and they are often time-sensitive. You may need advice if:

• You are executing, or resisting execution of, a compromise decree that contains an arbitration clause.
• A settlement or consent decree in your matter includes both payment obligations and a dispute resolution clause, and a fresh disagreement has arisen over compliance.
• You have been served with execution proceedings under Order XXI CPC and believe the underlying decree requires the dispute to go to arbitration first.
• You are drafting or negotiating a compromise deed, family settlement, or commercial agreement and want the arbitration and payment clauses to be internally consistent.
• You have received, or wish to file, an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order refusing or allowing reference to arbitration.

Conclusion

Jaipaldas Rajdev v. Varsha Agarwal is a clear reaffirmation that arbitration clauses in compromise decrees are not decorative language. Once parties agree that disputes arising from their settlement will go to an arbitrator, courts, including executing courts, are expected to hold them to that bargain. At the same time, the judgment shows that invoking arbitration is not a tool to indefinitely delay a decree holder from realising what is legitimately due, since execution simply resumes once the arbitrator decides the disputed question within a fixed timeframe.

If you are dealing with execution of a compromise decree, a dispute over a settlement agreement, or need to draft a settlement that anticipates future disagreements correctly, timely and precise legal advice makes a material difference to the outcome.

Author

Advocate Siddharth Shukla

MP High Court • Supreme Court of India

Practising Advocate at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and various tribunals, with extensive experience in constitutional, civil, criminal, and commercial litigation. Focused on delivering strategic legal solutions, analytical insights, and effective representation in complex disputes and high-stakes matters.

LinkedIn X / Twitter