SATYANARAYAN JIWAN RAM Vs. MD. ILLIASS
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Satyanarayan Jiwan Ram
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.