Lakshman Singh vs Gopal Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5713 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4284/2023

Lakshman Singh S/o Sh. Nathu Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Karni Kunj, Ward No. 13 Old Aabadi, Sriganganagar

----Petitioner Versus

1. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Nathu Singh, R/o Ward No. 2, Nai Khunjan, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh

2. Bimla Devi W/o Sh. Ratan Singh, D/o Nathu Singh, R/o Badopal Road, Ward No. 28, Suratgarh Road, Sriganganagar

3. Smt. Parwati D/o Late Parmeshwari Devi, R/o Village 9 Chak Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

4. Mahendra Pal Singh Rathore S/o Kesar Kanwar, R/o Village Kishanpura Utrada, Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh.

5. Smt. Seema W/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, D/o Late Kesar Kanwar, Ward No. 3, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Aakash Kukkar.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Vinit Sanadhya for
                                 Mr. B.S. Sandhu.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 04/08/2023 Pronounced on 08/08/2023

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of petitioner that this petition may kindly be allowed and

a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 21.09.2022 (Annex-9) passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Cases, District Sriganganagar in C.O. no.129/2008

(2 of 6) [CW-4284/2023]

(171/2016) rejecting the application dated 25.05.2022 (Annex-3) under Order 12 Rule 1, 3A & 6 CPC, application dated 24.08.2022 (Annex-5) under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC & application dated 12.09.2022 (Annex-8) under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner through common order may kindly be quashed and set aside and;

b) in consequence thereof the application filed by petitioner dated 25.05.2022 (Annex-3) under Order 12 Rule 1, 3A & 6 CPC may kindly be allowed in toto as prayed, or;

c) in alternate the application dated 24.08.2022 (Annex-5) under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC & application dated 12.09.2022 (Annex-8) under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC may kindly be allowed in toto as prayed and after taking the documents on record, the petitioner may kindly be allowed, appropriate opportunity to lead evidence in regards to the execution of compromise and the consequential amount received as prayed.

d) Any other writ, order or direction which as deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

e) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a

suit for partition before the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.

Cases), Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner and other persons;

during pendency of the suit, the parties have entered into a

compromise and resolved the dispute amicably out of Court, as

per the terms and conditions mentioned in such compromise.

2.1. The petitioner filed an application on 25.02.2022 under

Order 12 Rule 1, 3-A, & 6 CPC for summoning the respondent for

affirmation of the compromise; it was also prayed in the

(3 of 6) [CW-4284/2023]

application that in case the respondent fails to do so, the decree

may be passed in favour of the present petitioner.

2.2. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-

A CPC on 24.08.2022 before the learned Court below, and also

filed a certified copy of the notarial register, affidavit of the

witnesses, namely, Dungar Singh and Sandeep Shekhawat, Bank

Statement and a photocopy of the Cheque pertaining to the

compromise in question, while praying that the same may be

taken on record.

2.3 The petitioner filed another application under Order 18 Rule

17 CPC on 12.09.2022 before the learned Court below seeking

permission for re-examination of the respondent in regard to the

compromise in question.

2.4. The respondent filed a reply to the said applications,

whereafter, the learned Court below vide the common impugned

order dated 21.09.2022 rejected all the aforementioned three

applications of the petitioner.

2.5. The petitioner filed a review petition under Section 114 along

with Order 47 Rules 1 to 4 and Section 151 CPC before the

learned Court below, which too was dismissed by the learned

Court below vide the order dated 20.02.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

compromise has been arrived between the parities in the spirit of

Lok Adalat and the respondent no.1 admittedly executed the same

in the favour of the petitioner; therefore, it was not necessary that

such compromise should be executed through Court.

(4 of 6) [CW-4284/2023]

3.1. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was

passed mainly on count of the fact that for five years, the matter

remained pending at the stage of final arguments, but the learned

Court below did not take into due consideration the fact that the

parties have entered into a compromise and also the respondent

no.1 received the payment in lieu of such compromise, and

therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1

has refused to acknowledge the compromise, despite existence

and presentation of the documents as well as affidavits, on record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondent no.1 has

not received any sum, as no amount was mentioned in the

compromise.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that no compromise has

been arrived at between the respondent and the petitioner, and

thus, the averment made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to

compromise between the parties was incorrect.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the suit in question has

been filed in the year 2008 and the same is still pending, and

therefore, at this stage, the applications filed by the petitioner

were rightly rejected by the learned Court below vide the

impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

(5 of 6) [CW-4284/2023]

6. This Court observes that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit

for partition before learned Court below against the petitioner and

other persons; during pendency of the said suit, the petitioner

filed three applications, as above, under Order 12 Rules 1, 3-A, &

6 CPC, Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC and Order 18 Rule 17 CPC along with

Section 151 CPC, respectively, before the learned Court below; the

said applications were dismissed vide the impugned order dated

21.09.2022; thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition under

Section 114 along with Order 47 Rules 1 to 4 and Section 151

CPC, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Court below

vide order dated 20.02.2023.

7. This Court further observes that in the impugned order, it

was clearly recorded that the compromise was produced by the

respondent-plaintiff and also it was not recorded before the

learned Court below nor executed through the Court, and also no

amount as well as cheque details were mentioned in the

compromise; thus, on that count, the impugned order is justified

in law.

8. This Court also observes that the suit was filed on

22.08.2008, and the same was pending for evidence from

20.03.2017 to 03.01.2018, and thereafter the suit has been

pending since 15.01.2018 for final arguments.

8.1 This Court further observes that the suit has been pending

for last 15 years, and pendency thereof at the stage of final

arguments is more than 5 years, and therefore at this stage,

without there being any affirmation thereof, on the part of either

(6 of 6) [CW-4284/2023]

party, the aforementioned applications were liable to be rejected,

and the same were rightly rejected vide the impugned order.

9. This Court further observes that the learned Court below

passed the impugned order and thereafter the aforementioned

review petition was also dismissed, and therefore, nothing

survives to be adjudicated by this Court in the present case.

10. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the

factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit

case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present

petition.

11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)