- (1.) THIS application under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed by Ajit Inder Singh for reviewing the order dated 21. 2. 1992 passed by me in Civil Revision No. 2955 of 1991.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as under:the applicant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala, for restoration of the suit which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18. 5. 1982. Pritam Singh and Ajit I rider Singh applicant filed a suit for prohibitory injunction restraining Smt. Kuldip Kaur and others, defendants-respondents, from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was compromised and compromise-deed Exhibit C-I was filed, which reads : "compromise Deed: Sir, The parties submit as under: 1. That the aforesaid case is pending in this court and is fixed for 18. 5. 1982 for further proceedings. 2. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are related to each other and the matter has been compromised on the intervention of other relations and respectables. 3. That Surjit Singh defendant is the owner of plot bearing Khasra No. 495/1/2 measuring 600 sq. yards. Harinder Kaur defendant is the owner of plot bearing Khasra No. 495/1/2 measuring 560 sq. yards; Birinder Kaur defendant is the owner of plot bearing Khasra No. 495/1/2 measuring 583 sq. yards and Smt. Kuldip Kaur defendant is the owner of plot bearing Khasra No. 495/1/2 measuring 600 sq. yards. All these plots along with another plot of Smt. Satwant Kaur measuring 582 sq. yards are continuous to each other and have a common boundary Wall. 4. That the plaintiffs were in possession on the plots of Surjit Singh, Harinder Kaur, Birinder Kaur and Kuldip Kaur, defendants. The defendants have agreed to transfer the ownership of plot owned by Smt. Birinder Kaur defendant, measuring 583 sq. yards and, as a result of it, the plaintiffs have delivered the possession of the respective plots owned by Surjit Singh, Smt. Harinder Kaur and Kuldip Kaur, defendants, to them. The plaintiffs have now no connection with the respective plots of Shri Surjit Singh, Smt. Harinder Kaur and Kuldip Kaur, defendants, as they are owners and now in possession of their respective plots. 5. That Smt, Birinder Kaur defendant will get the sale-deed of the plot valued Rs, 40,000/executed in favour of the plaintiffs today in consideration of the plaintiffs having relinquished the possession with regard to the plots of Shri Surjit Singh, Harinder Kaur and Kuldip Kaur. The plot of Smt. Birinder Kaur adjoins the plot of Balbir Singh Qanungo, 6. That Smt. Barinder Kaur has already been compensated by the defendants with regard to the plot owned by her 7. As the plaintiffs are now not in possession of the plots owned by Shri Surjit Singh, Harinder Kaur and Smt. Kuldip Kaur, defendants, therefore, their suit against the said defendants has become infructuous. It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed as infructuous against the defendants, as the defendants are in possession of the suit land as owners thereof. " Ajit Inder Singh made a statement before the learned Sub Judge' on 18. 5. 1982, stating that the parties have compromised that Exhibit C-l is the compromise; that, accordingly; Birinder Kaur had sold her plot measuring 583 square yards; as per terms of the compromises (Exhibit G-l); that plaintiff has become the owner and in possession qua 583 square yards mentioned above, while the plaintiff had delivered possession of the plots of Surjit Singh, Harinder Kaur, and Smt. Kuldip Kaur to them; that the plaintiff had no connection now with the possession of the said plots, except 583 square yards mentioned above; and that the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous and be decided accordingly.
(3.) THE learned Sub Judge on 18. 5. 1982 passed the following order: "present:-Ajit Singh on behalf of himself and Attorney of Pritam Singh plaintiff and M. L. Gupta, counsel for the plaintiff, and Shri B. S. Janda, counsel for the defendant. When this case came up for hearing today, the 18th May, 1982, the parties have compromised and have filed compromise-deed Exhibit C-l. According to the terms of the compromise-deed Exhibit C-l and statements of Ajit Inder Singh and counsel for the parties, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The file be consigned to records. Sd/-Judge Ist Class, Patiala. ";