Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs Prem Chand And Others on 23 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 417 of 2023
Decided on: 23.05.2025
____________________________________________________
State of H.P. ........... petitioner
Versus
Prem Chand and others
..........respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General.
For the respondents : Nemo.
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been filed against the
impugned order/award dated 13.8.2022 passed by National Lok
Adalat, whereby respondents No. 1 to 18 plaintiffs before the trial
Court and respondents No. 19 & 20 defendants before the trial
Court have compromised the matter in terms of compromise
placed on record at page 39 of the paper book.
2. The present petitioner was a proforma defendant
No.3 in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 18. In terms of law
down by the apex Court in (2008) 2. SCC 660 titled as State of
Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others, the present
petition is maintainable.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. The suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 18 was a suit
filed for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory
injunction against respondents No. 18 & 19/defendants No. 1 & 2
before the trial Court. In the suit so filed, it was categorically
admitted that the land in question is owned by proforma
respondent No.3. In terms of the compromise placed at page 39
of the paper book, respondents No. 1 to 18 (plaintiffs) and
respondents No. 19 and 20(defendants) before the trial Court
have settled the matter insofar as their respective possession of
the suit land is concerned. Obviously no claim had been made in
the suit with respect to the ownership of the suit land. Hence, in
view of the compromise so arrived, the impugned order dated
13.8.2022 had been passed whereby matter inter se the parties in
terms of compromise placed at page 39 was compromised and
the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 18 was dismissed as
withdrawn.
4. From a perusal of the compromise (page 39 of the
paper book) and the impugned order dated 13.8.2022, it is
evident that all that has been compromised is the status of the
possession of the parties insofar as the suit land is concerned.
Since no claim has been staked to the ownership of the said land
which admittedly is owned by the present petitioner/proforma
defendant No.3, therefore, the present petition is disposed of
being devoid of any merit, so also the pending miscellaneous
applications, if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
May 23, 2025
tarun
