- (1.) I .A. No. 6698 of 2013 has been filed for making necessary amendments in the writ application. I.A. No. 6698 of 2013 is allowed and prayer made in the I.A. will become the part of this writ application. W.P. (C) No. 2026 of 2013.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the orders dated 16.02.2013 and 03.08.2013 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division -1st, Dhanbad in Execution Case No. 83 of 2012/T.S. No. 92 of 2010. It appears that respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 had filed a title suit for specific performance of contract, against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. It further appears that said suit decreed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties. It further appears that when the compromise decree not acted upon, respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 filed an application under Section 28 (3) of the Specific Relief Act for a direction upon the respondents to comply the decree. It further appears that learned court below instead of hearing that application in the main suit, instituted execution case bearing Execution Case No. 83 of 2012 vide order dated 26.11.2012. It further appears that during pendency of said execution case, petitioners also filed an application in the court below under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act . It further appears that thereafter Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application that Execution Case No. 83 of 2012 be attached with the main suit as I.A., because, as per Section 28 (3) of the Specific Relief Act, application of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is required to be heard in the same suit. It further appears that aforesaid prayer of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 16.02.2013. From perusal of said order, it also appears that application of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and application of petitioners under Section 28 (1) are ordered to be tagged with the main suit, i.e. Title Suit No. 92 of 2010. From perusal of the order I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.02.2013, because as per Section 28 (1) and 28 (3), it is clear that if any application filed by either of the parties, then same will be heard in the same suit. By the impugned order, court below ordered that both application will be heard in the same suit, thus, there is no illegality.
(3.) FROM perusal of impugned order dated 03.08.2013, it appears that another application of petitioners by which they prayed that their application under Section 28 (1) be treated as Miscellaneous Case has been rejected. The learned Court below has said that the prayer of petitioners has already been taken care in order dated 16.02.2013. Under the said circumstance, no fresh order is required to be passesd. Thus, said order of the court below also appears to be legal.;