KANTILAL HIRACHAND SHAH Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) THE facts in brief are that petitioner had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 893/1994 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD) Surat at Bardoli against the respondents praying for possession and recovery of the outstanding rent and mesne profit in respect of the property bearing No. 271 situated at Village Gangadhara, Taluka Palsana, District Surat, which was given on lease to the respondents. Pending the suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for compromise. On 30.04.1995, both the parties arrived at amicable settlement and the respondents agreed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the petitioner on or before 31.07.1995 and pay outstanding amount of Rs.85,470/- towards rent for the period between 01.04.1992 to 30.04.1995. In pursuance of the compromise arrived at between the parties, decree was drawn accordingly. However, the respondents did not comply with the terms of compromise. THErefore, the petitioner had preferred Execution Application No.6/1996 before the trial Court. It is the case of the petitioner that after the execution application, the respondents preferred two different applications Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12 praying to set aside the compromise recorded at Lok Adalat and the decree drawn in pursuance of the compromise and also to proceed with the suit on merits. THE trial Court vide order dated 20.03.1998 rejected the application Exhibit-11 and directed the parties to proceed with the matter. However, the trial Court allowed the application Exhibit-12 and stayed the execution of the decree passed in Lok Adalat. On 11.01.2001, the petitioner preferred application Exhibit-29 for modification of the order dated 20.03.1998. THE trial Court vide order dated 18.03.2005 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed below Exhibit-12 and Exhibit-29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 893/1994, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.