KASTURI DEVI Vs. RAM SWAROOP
LAWS(MPH)-1983-7-41
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
July 26,1983
KASTURI DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
RAM SWAROOP
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
K.N.SHUKLA,J. -
(1.)THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff, challenging the order dated 17 -10 -1981, passed by Civil Judge Class II, Morena, dismissing her application, purporting to be under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, alternatively, under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC.
(2.)THE facts are interesting and admittedly, learned counsel were unable to show any precedent on such a question. The non -applicant Ramswaroop, was a tenant of a non -residential accommodation, belonging to the plaintiff -petitioner. The petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The suit was registered as C.O.S. No. 28 -A of 1977. On 19 -4 -1977, parties filed a compromise petition before the trial Court. In this petition, the defendant -non -applicant had admitted that the suit shop was genuinely required by the plaintiff for the business of her son. It was also admitted that the defendant was in arrears of rent, which had not been deposited in the Court within the prescribed time. The compromise deed contained a recital that the suit shop had been vacated by the defendant and possession was delivered to the plaintiff voluntarily.
When the plaintiff sought a decree in terms of the compromise, the defendant resiled and denied the compromise. The Court rejected the compromise application on 10 -4 -1978.
(3.)PLAINTIFF preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court set aside the order rejecting the application for a decree in terms of the compromise and directed an enquiry into the factum of such a compromise and passing of appropriate orders thereon. In compliance, the trial Court conducted an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC and by order dated 11 -4 -1980, held that the compromise had been arrived at between the parties, It further directed that the said compromise be taken on record and a decree be drawn up accordingly. The decree was, therefore, drawn in terms of the compromise.
(2.)THE facts are interesting and admittedly, learned counsel were unable to show any precedent on such a question. The non -applicant Ramswaroop, was a tenant of a non -residential accommodation, belonging to the plaintiff -petitioner. The petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The suit was registered as C.O.S. No. 28 -A of 1977. On 19 -4 -1977, parties filed a compromise petition before the trial Court. In this petition, the defendant -non -applicant had admitted that the suit shop was genuinely required by the plaintiff for the business of her son. It was also admitted that the defendant was in arrears of rent, which had not been deposited in the Court within the prescribed time. The compromise deed contained a recital that the suit shop had been vacated by the defendant and possession was delivered to the plaintiff voluntarily.
When the plaintiff sought a decree in terms of the compromise, the defendant resiled and denied the compromise. The Court rejected the compromise application on 10 -4 -1978.
(3.)PLAINTIFF preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court set aside the order rejecting the application for a decree in terms of the compromise and directed an enquiry into the factum of such a compromise and passing of appropriate orders thereon. In compliance, the trial Court conducted an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC and by order dated 11 -4 -1980, held that the compromise had been arrived at between the parties, It further directed that the said compromise be taken on record and a decree be drawn up accordingly. The decree was, therefore, drawn in terms of the compromise.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.