SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. KARAM DEVI
LAWS(P&H)-2001-5-11
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 03,2001

SANTOSH KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
KARAM DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court dated 4-6-1999.
(2.) Reference to basic facts would be necessary. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was owner of the house in dispute and further prayed for the relief of injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the said house. This suit was contested by the defendant. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 2-6-1998 dismissed the suit as withdrawn in view of the compromise between the parties, which reads as follows : "2-6-98 : Counsel for the parties. Parties have effected the compromise. Defendant has made statement that she will not dispose of the suit property during her life time. In view of the statement of the defendant the plaintiff has made statement that he shall pay Rs. 200.00 p.m. as maintenance to the defendant and he withdraw the present suit. In view of the statements of the parties, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room. Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Rupnagar."
(3.) This order was passed after recording the statements of the parties in the presence of their counsel. Certain correction was made in this order by the Court on 17-8-1998. Karam Devi respondent filed an appeal against this order, which was accepted by the learned first appellate Court and the decree dated 2-6-1998 was set aside giving rise to this Regular Second Appeal. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 23-2-2000. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared and the matter was adjourned on 11-9-2000. On that date nobody appeared for the respondent and the case was adjourned for hearing for 11-1-2001. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent it was adjourned to 18-1-2001. Thereafter on 14-2-2001 and finally on 25-4-2001 the matter was listed for hearing and the Court passed the following order : "Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that the case has been called for three times. Learned counsel for the appellant has concluded his arguments. Reserved for judgment.";


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