Navratan Lal Sharma vs Radha Mohan Sharma And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4829 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 210/2014

Navratan Lal Sharma adopted son of Late Shri Surajmal, age
about 61 years, resident of Shri Ram Gopal Pura urf Bhojyawas,
Pando ki Dhani, Sirsi Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
                                                          ----Plaintiff-Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Radha Mohan Sharma son of Shri Durga Sahai Sharma,
Director Krishna Gopal Build Estate Private Ltd, resident of plot
No.44, Ganga Vihar Colony, Sirsi Road, Jaipur presently accused
in Central Jail, Sanganeri Gate, Agra Road, Jaipur.
2. Pinkcity Highland Realcon Pvt. Ltd. through director, Gaurav
Gupta son of Late Shri Rajiv Gupta, resident of plot No.B-27,
Dev Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Sub Registrar (First), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Sanganer, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur.
5. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Jaipur Metropolitan,
Jaipur (Raj.).
                                               ----Defendants-Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. O.P. Mishra
                               Mr. Ajay Verma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Pallav Choudhary
                               Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

14/07/2022

1. This first appeal was filed by appellant-plaintiff feeling

aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.02.2014 passed by

Additional District Judge No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit

No.75/2013 whereby and whereunder his civil suit for cancellation

of sale deed and permanent injunction against respondent-

purchaser-Pinkcity Highland Realcon Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed.

(2 of 2) [CFA-210/2014]

2. During course of first appeal, appellant-plaintiff-seller and

respondent-purchser-Pinkcity Highland Realcon Pvt. Ltd have

entered into compromise and a compromise dated 18.05.2022

with corrigendum compromise dated 08.07.2022 have been placed

on record along with application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

3. The compromise have been attested in presence of

concerned parties by the Registrar (Judicial).

4. Learned counsel for both parties submits that the

compromise may be taken on record and first appeal may be

disposed of in terms of compromise.

5. This Court, without entering into the merits of appeal but

without giving any liberty to get restored the first appeal, is of

considered opinion that when both parties have entered into the

terms of compromise and have agreed to abide by the terms of

compromise, this appeal deserves to be disposed of accordingly.

6. Hence the compromise dated 18.05.2022 along with

corrigendum compromise dated 08.07.2022 is taken on record

and the first appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise.

7. The compromise dated 18.05.2022 along with corrigendum

compromise dated 08.07.2022 shall be treated as part of this

order.

8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the

application seeking refund of court-fees is dismissed.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/98

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)