- (1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had arisen out of the order passed by IX Additional District Judge, Hardoi in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 8/2017 whereby the order passed by the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hardoi in Suit No. 61/2007 on 2.8.2017 granting an order of temporary injunction, was affirmed.
(2.) In the suit which has been instituted by opposite party no. 1 for permanent injunction against opposite parties no. 2 to 4 as well as the petitioners, the subject matter is a house property bearing House No. 108, Nichla Mahatwana, Near Pili Kothi, Sadar Bazar, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi measuring 21 Ft. x 66.5 Ft. = 1396.50 sq ft (approx.). The petitioners are alleged to be tenants whereas opposite parties no. 2 to 5 who are impleaded in the suit are the lineal descendants of the common ancestors. In order to give out a clear picture of the legal succession, the pedigree may be set out as under: The family of which the pedigree has been set out hereinabove, owns a large number of immovable properties including the disputed property. Except opposite party no. 1 Dinesh Prakash Gupta and widow of his eldest real brother Ramesh Prakash Gupta (plaintiff) all other family members having interest in the property are settled in Kolkata. Smt. Meena Gupta who is one of the real sisters of opposite party no. 1 (plaintiff) is settled in Kannauj. It is demonstrated that late Laxmi Prakash Gupta was appointed as an administrator of the properties by Kolkata High Court. It is in the capacity of administrator of properties that a memorandum of understanding had come to be made in favour of the petitioners according to which right to purchase in respect of the disputed property at 1/4th of the market value of the property was created in their favour. The market value was ascertained looking to the prevailing rate and circle rate for which the report of district authority was called for and the price settled on a higher side which remained unopposed.
(3.) This Court normally does not venture into a process of compromise in the proceedings under Article 227 of Constitution of India but looking to the complexity of dispute and the interest of parties involved therein, a proposal was floated in the open court proceedings for calling upon all the parties to settle the disputed amicably. When the case was fixed on 27.3.2019, all the parties mentioned in the order dated 27.3.2019 had appeared and subscribed to the terms and conditions recorded in the order. Presence of the parties who were present in person was duly noted on the order sheet. In order to secure the ends of justice, initial order passed on 27.3.2019 was modified by an order dated 15.5.2019 passed on a review application being filed by opposite parties no. 5 to 9 who were not impleaded in the suit but were co-sharers in the branch of the plaintiff. The Review Application was numbered as Review No. 48100 of 2019. The review petition of non-parties to the suit was entertained and the review petitioners were impleaded as opposite parties no. 5 to 9.The order dated 15.5.2019 was also passed after ensuring the personal presence of all the parties. On 15.5.2019 when the order was passed, three persons, namely, Shree Prakash Gupta, Jai Prakash Gupta and Dilip Gupta were not present, however, their representation was owned by the opposite party no. 1 (plaintiff) and opposite party no. 2 Prem Prakash Gupta who is the eldest son of late Laxmi Prasad Gupta.;