SMT. POOJA Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents. On 21.07.2016, this appeal was heard and judgment was reserved noting the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as under:

(2.) I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondents No.2 & 3 are the mother and father of the respondents No.1, 4 & 5. Appellant is the wife of respondent No.4 and thus, daughter-in-law of respondents No.2 & 3. Fifth respondent Sri Anil Kumar Singh filed O.S. No.136 of 2000 to restrain the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 from evicting him from the house property in question. The suit was contested by the parties but ultimately they entered into a compromise on 11.08.2003 and a decree in terms of compromise was passed on 13.08.2003 by the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court- 11, Jalaun at Orai in respect of the house property in question at Rajendra Nagar, Orai. According to the contesting respondents No.1, 2 & 3, all the respondents were put in possession in the respective portions but on legal advice an Execution Case No.61 of 2008 was filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 against the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. in the aforesaid Execution Case for recall of the compromise decree. The application of the respondent No.4 (husband of the appellant) was rejected by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 27.08.2012. He challenged this order in Writ-C No.48402 of 2012 which was dismissed by order dated 25.09.2012 as under: