This Court dismissed civil applications challenging the recording of a compromise decree. The Court held that since the matter is settled by compromise, the recall order cannot be entertained.
Civil applications dismissed; no relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/4
0307caf1008.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1008/2012 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.600/2009 (Omprakash s/o Harishankar Mishra and others vs. Dilip Laxmikant Belsare) WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1009/2012 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.601/2009 (Omprakash s/o Harishankar Mishra vs. Dilip Laxmikant Belsare and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1008/2012
Shri A.V. Muley, Advocate for applicant/respondent. Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for appellants.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1009/2012
Shri A.V. Muley, Advocate for applicant/respondent no.1. Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for appellant. Shri A.M. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED : JULY 3, 2012
These civil applications are filed by
Vijay Shankarrao Talewar, who claims to be the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent Dilip Laxmikant Belsare, as described in the civil applications.
0307caf1008.12
2/4
The array of the parties in First Appeal Nos. 600/2009 and 601/2009 does not describe respondent Dilip Laxmikant Belsare through Power of Attorney Holder, but has been described only by his name. On 21/11/2011, the appellants as well as respondents to these First Appeals filed applications for passing compromise decree on the ground that the parties to the First Appeals arrived at a compromise. Accordingly, on 23.11.2011, this Court made an order in the presence of parties as well as their respective Counsel and allowed the compromise as requested by the parties and their Counsel and accordingly a compromise decree was ordered to be passed.
It appears that on 18/11/2011, Shri V.D. Muley, the Counsel for respondent no.1, endorsed `no objection' on the Vakalatnama of Adv. A.M. Deshpande and that is why Adv. A.M. Deshpande filed Vakalatnama for respondent Dilip Laxmikant Belsare. Thereafter appeals were circulated for recording compromise on 23/11/2011.
The ground made out in the applications is that wife of respondent Dilip Laxmikant Belsare,
0307caf1008.12
3/4
namely, Mrs. Bharti Dilip Belsare filed Vakalatnama as a Power of Attorney Holder of her husband and that the instrument of Power of Attorney was not attached with the Vakalatnama. Today Adv. A.M. Deshpande has tendered document of Power of Attorney registered on 5/3/2010 with the Registrar by which Dilip Laxmikant Belsare has given Power of Attorney to his wife Mrs. Bharti Belsare. Adv. Deshpande is directed to place a photocopy of the same on record, which shall be marked `X' for identification.
Even assuming that Power of Attorney was not filed by Mrs. Bharti Belsare, the fact remains that it is a registered document of 2010 and, therefore, it is not possible to agree that there was no Power of Attorney with Mrs. Bharti Belsare. At any rate, Mrs. Bharti Belsare being wife of Dilip Belsare, in my opinion, she is the best person to take care of her husband, who is suffering from paralysis and is dependent on his wife. Whatever rights the present applicant Vijay Shankarrao Talewar has or had, he is at liberty to work out the same in accordance with law. However, the order recording compromise
0307caf1008.12
4/4
cannot be recalled as contended by him.
In view of the above, these civil applications are not entertained and the same are dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
khj
Vijay Shankarrao Talewar
Dilip Laxmikant Belsare
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
