Uttarakhand High Court
Sunil Dutt Sharma (Now Deceased) vs Smt. Mumtaj Begam on 23 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Second Appeal No.78 of 2020
1. Sunil Dutt Sharma (now deceased) S/o Jai Prakesh
Sharma R/o 2G Lane, Gurudwara Road, Thana
Kutubsher, District Sharanpur, UP.
1/1. Smt. Sashi Sharma W/o Late Sunil Dutt Sharma
R/o 2G Lane, Gurudwara Road, Thana Kutubsher,
District Sharanpur, UP.
1/2. Mudit Kausik S/o Late Sunil Dutt Sharma R/o 2G
Lane, Gurudwara Road, Thana Kutubsher, District
Sharanpur, UP.
.....Appellants
Vs.
1. Smt. Mumtaj Begam W/o Ajgar Khan @ Asgar Khan
R/o Vadic Nager, New Basti, Raiwala, Pargana
Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun
2. Ajgar Khan @ Asgar Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan R/o
Vadic Nager, New Basti, Raiwala, Pargana
Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikes, District Dehradun
.....Respondents
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for
the appellants
Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate for the respondents
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
This was a plaintiffs/appellants' second
appeal, which was preferred being aggrieved as against
the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2020 and the
decree dated 03.02.2020, which was passed by the
court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District
Dehradun in Civil Appeal No.167 of 2018 Sunil Dutt
Sharma and Others vs. Smt. Mumtaj & Others,
whereby the appeal preferred by the
plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed, and as a
consequence thereto, it has resulted into an affirmation
of the judgment dated 31.10.2018, which was passed
by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh,
District Dehradun, in Original Suit No.44 of 2011 Sunil
Dutt Sharma and Others vs. Smt. Mumtaj and Others.
2. The second appeal was preferred on
04.09.2020, along with a delay condonation
application, and during its pendency, the parties to the
present second appeal have made a statement on
04.01.2021, that they have entered into a compromise
outside the Court, in view of the earlier observations
which were made by this Court, in its orders dated
07.12.2020 and 22.12.2020.
3. Later on, in compliance of the order dated
04.01.2021, the Compromise Application no.9821 of
2021, along with the compromise deed was filed by the
parties, under the joint signatures of the parties to the
dispute as well as their respective counsels. Taking
cognizance to the compromise application, preferred
under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C., since the signatures
were required to be judicially verified as per the
provisions of C.P.C., this Court on 07.01.2021, had
directed the court of 2nd Additional District Judge,
Dehradun, to verify the signatures of the parties to the
second appeal, which were appearing on the
compromise, as well as, the terms of the compromise,
which has been placed by them on record of the
present second appeal. In pursuance to the
communication of this High Court's Letter
no.157/UHC/Appeal-2 dated 08.01.2021, the 2nd
Additional District Judge, Dehradun, had submitted his
compliance report on 12.01.2021, whereby the
signatures of the parties, which were appearing on the
compromise application, has been verified by him. In
view of the aforesaid report submitted by the court of
2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun on 12.01.2021,
in fact the compromise, which was submitted by the
parties in the second appeal, stands verified.
Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below, which
are impugned in the present second appeal are
modified, in terms of the compromise, which has been
entered into between the parties and, accordingly, the
second appeal will stand adjudicated in terms of the
compromise, which had been filed by the parties on
21.12.2020. Consequently, the second appeal stands
decided in terms of the compromise, which has been
verified by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun
and the same is closed accordingly.
4. Registry is directed to frame the decree in
terms of the compromise.
5. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
23.02.2021
Rajni
