Punjab-Haryana High Court
Urvashi And Another vs Kanhiya And Others on 4 July, 2023
2023:PHHC:083409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
CR-1754-2021(O&M)
Decided on : 04.07.2023
Urvashi and another
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Kanhiya and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been filed against the award dated
05.06.2009 (Anneuxre P-2) passed by the Permanent and Countinuous Lok
Adalat, Rewari, whereby inter se dispute regarding property amongst the
members of one family was settled. In fact, one civil suit for seeking decree
of declaration and permanent injunction was instituted by Kanhiya and
Ishwar Dutt sons of Jagdish Parshad against their own brothers, mother and
other family members (defendants therein).
Dispute regarding property was pertaining to the residential
house, which was earlier owned by Jagdish Parshad & thus, considering the
dispute to be amongst the family members, it was referred to the Permanent
Lok Adalat and Samjhota Sadan, Rewari, for some amicable solution.
2. Accordingly, one compromise/mutual settlement deed was
prepared and marked as Ex.C1 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Rewari on
20.03.2009. Compromise deed was signed by all the interested parties, who
all were also the parties to the civil suit. Even Mahabir Parsad (defendant
No.3 in civil suit), who is father of the petitioners herein, had also affixed his
signatures in English.
3. Consequently, learned Permanent Lok Adalat passed an award
dated 05.06.2009 making the compromise deed Ex.C1 and the site plan
Ex.P1 as part of the award after the settlement of dispute amongst the
parties.
4. After more than about 12 years, petitioners, who are successors
KAVITA NAIN
2023.07.06 10:17 in interest of Mahabir Parsad (defendant No.3 in civil suit) has alleged that
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment
2023:PHHC:083409
CR-1754-2021(O&M) -2-
the said compromise is the outcome of fraud, therefore, they are not bound
by the same.
5. I have gone through the pleadings raised in the petition as well
as documents of compromise, which is appended as Annexure P-3 with the
present petition and has noticed that Mahabir Parsad, has signed over the
document of compromise, which is in Hindi vernacular with his own hand in
English. It is also noticed that never any challenge has been made by the
petitioners or Mahabir Parsad himself, denying the signature of Mahabir
Parsad. Even, this Court has been apprised by the counsel for the petitioners
that to the best of his knowledge, never any complaint was addressed by the
petitioners to any of the authorities apprehending it to be a fraud committed
by anybody.
Even, there is no answer with the petitioners as to why Mahabir
Parsad has never made complaint about the compromise before the
Permanent Lok Adalat. Even, none of the others brothers or mother or any
other party have ever expressed their displeasure about the compromise
before the Lok Adalat.
6. Otherwise, petition before this Court appears to be instituted
with some ulterior motive by levelling false or baseless allegations of fraud
that too after a long gap of more than 12 years of the compromise. Thus,
finding no substance in the present petition, same is dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
July 04, 2023
k.nain
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
KAVITA NAIN
2023.07.06 10:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment
