Decided on May 07,2013

Satyanarayan Jiwan Ram Appellant
Md. Illiass Respondents


- (1.) HEARD Mrs. PDB Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IT appears from the record and from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the eviction suit filed by the present respondents against the present petitioners went up to the highest Court i.e. the Supreme Court of India and the SLP filed by the present petitioners in the Supreme Court had already been dismissed. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that later on, the petitioners filed the suit for declaration that the earlier decree passed by the Court is not binding to the present petitioners and it was ended on compromise. Thereafter, the petitioners filed T. S. No. 8(H)/2009 before the Court of Assistant District Judge in respect of the same suit land for declaration that the parties should be bound by the compromise decree.
(3.) IN that T. S. No. 8(H)/2009, the petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned trial Court passed an order restraining the respondents from constructing the building on the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the trial Court was of the view that a local inspection was required. After a local inspection, the learned trial Court was of the view that there was element for compromise. Accordingly, the learned trial Court had formulated the terms of settlement and furnished the copies to the parties for their observations. The parties had submitted their observations to the terms of settlement formulated by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after perusal of the observations made by the parties to the terms of settlement formulated as well as the report of local inspection was of the considered view that there is no element of settlement.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.