- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that Respondent No. 1 is not a necessary party and, therefore, the same is required to be deleted.
(2.) IT appears that the present writ petition is arising out of inter se dispute of the parties and State has nothing to do. Respondent No. 1 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties. It appears that the court below has passed the order on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and thereafter, one of the party (original defendant No. 3) moved an application before the court below on 10.12.2009 that defendant No. 3 is not agreeable to the terms and conditions and would like to proceed on merit and also requested to set aside the order passed on the settlement arrived at between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the said application has not been decided till date and, therefore, necessary direction may be issued upon the court below so that the application filed by defendant No. 3 can be decided at the earliest. It is also submitted that the present petitioner may be permitted to raise all the issues before the court below and the court below may be directed to decide the application after considering the rival submissions made by the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out by referring para 5 to the writ petition that the present petitioner has also moved an application before the court below on 02.03.2012 raising all the points and the said application is still pending for the reason of non availability of the court, but now, the court is available and, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly, in view of the fact that the application filed by defendant No. 3 dated 10.12.2009 is still pending, likewise, the application filed by the present petitioner dated 02.03.2012 is also pending and, therefore, both the applications are required to be heard expeditiously since the suit was disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. Subsequently, one the parties i.e. defendant No. 3 raised the issues by his application dated 10.12.2009 and, therefore, it is desirable that the applications filed by defendant No. 3 as well as the present petitioner are dealt with and decided by the court below at the earliest so that no further ambiguity can exist. Accordingly, the court below is directed to decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing and considering the rival submissions made by the parties before it within a period of four months from the date of this order.;