INDRAWATI DEVI Vs. BULU GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision applications have been taken up together. The parties in both the civil revision applications are the same and the factual background is also common. Civil Revision 376/87 (R) is against an order dated 6-11-87 passed in Misc. Case No. 22/87 granting a mandatory injunction in favour of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 and against the petitioner directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and put the opposite parties 1 to 4 in possession thereof. Civil Revision No. 377/87(R) is against an order of the same date in Title Suit No. 133/80 whereby the Court refused to grant permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit. It may be stated that Misc. Case No. 22/ 87 also arises in Title Suit No. 133 / 80.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that opposite party No. 5, Shankar Lal Bageria filed a suit in the year 1980 for the eviction of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner herein Smt. Indrawati Debi purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale from opposite party No. 5 Shankar Lal Bageria. The registered sale deed is dated 10th Oct. 1983. In view of the purchase of the suit property by the petitioner she was added as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit by order dated 14-8-1984. It is of some significance that evidence in the suit had concluded and 30th Oct. 1987 was the date fixed for arguments in the suit. The Court was closed for Puja Vacation for some time and it was to reopen on the 30th Oct., 1987.

(3.) Certain developments took place during the period when the civil Courts were closed for Puja Vacation and reference may now be made to those facts. According to the petitioner, there was a settlement with opposite parties Nos. 1 and. 3 in regard to handing over possession of the suit property to the petitioner with effect from 26th of Sept. 1987. The said settlement is said to have been recorded on stamp paper but so far that document has not seen the light of the day. According to the petitioner, in accordance with the settlement reached, they took possession of the suit property. Since the matter was settled amicably between the parties when the Court reopened on the 30th of Oct. 1987, she filed an application for withdrawal of the suit. The permission to withdraw the suit was refused by the trial Court and hence Civil Revision No. 377/87 has been preferred by the petitioner.