Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Duli Chand And Ors vs Magtu Khan And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:39259) on 21 September, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:39259]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 493/2013
Duli Chand And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
Magtu Khan And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. BL Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
Mr. Vijay Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
21/09/2024
The appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated
18.04.2012 and for permanent injunction. The respondents filed
their written statement and admitted the facts of the suit and
submitted that they have no objection if the suit has been
allowed.
During pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at
compromise on 19.05.2012 and the same was filed before the trial
court. But the trial court vide order dated 16.07.2012 denied to
verify the compromise dated 19.05.2012 on the ground that the
description of the property in the compromise is not matching with
the description mentioned in the suit. Subsequently, the
appellants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with the
prayer that the khasra number mentioned in paragraph No.3 and
relief clause of the suit may be corrected. The said application was
[2024:RJ-JD:39259] (2 of 3) [CFA-493/2013]
allowed on 09.08.2012 and the description of the land in dispute
was corrected in the suit.
However, the trial court dismissed the suit on merit on
20.09.2013.
The point for determination in this appeal is whether the trial
court has committed an error in law in passing of the order dated
16.07.2012 and denying to record the compromise and passing of
the decree dated 20.09.2013.
At this stage, it will be apt to refer to the provisions of Order
23 Rule 3 CPC, which reads as under :
"3. Compromise of suit.--Where it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted
wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or
compromise [in writing and signed by the parties] or
where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect
to the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the
suit, the Court shall order such agreement,
compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall
pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it
relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the
subject- matter of the agreement, compromise or
satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the
suit:]
Provided that where it is alleged by one party
and denied by the other that an adjustment or
satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide
the question; but not adjournment shall be granted
for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the
Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant
such adjournment."
[2024:RJ-JD:39259] (3 of 3) [CFA-493/2013]
Admittedly, the matter has already been compromised
between the parties on 19.05.2012 and the description of the
property has also been rectified by the trial court on 09.08.2012.
The parties to the appeal are still on agreement that the
matter is compromised on 19.05.2012 and the respondents do not
have any objection if the appeal is allowed.
In view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and
compromise dated 19.05.2012 and order dated 09.08.2012
passed by the trial court, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 16.07.2012 so also the impugned judgment dated
20.09.2013 passed by the trial court are set aside. The relief
prayed in the suit is granted in terms of the compromise arrived at
between the parties and the sale-deed dated 18.04.2012 is hereby
cancelled.
Stay application and pending applications, if any, also
decided.
Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.
Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
106-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
