Allowed

Mahant Kaushalendra Dasji v. Govind Gangadhar Kute

Bombay HC26 Feb 2024WP/2583/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Trial Court order rejecting an application to record a compromise deed. The Court directed the Trial Court to take the compromise dated 27.04.2022 on record and decree Special Civil Suit No.76 of 2020 accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order dated 05.08.2022; direction to Trial Court to take compromise on record and decree suit.

Mahant Kaushalendra Dasji Vs Govind Gangadhar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

23.wp.2583.24.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2583 OF 2024

¶6

Mahant Kaushalendra Dasji..Petitioner
Versus
Govind Gangadhar Kute]]..Respondent

¶7

Versus

¶8

Govind Gangadhar Kute

¶9

Mr. Yogesh Dandekar i/by Ms. Harshita B. Jangid Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 26, 2024.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Dandekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and

¶14

Mr. Inamdar, learned Advocate for Respondent.

¶15

2. Present Writ Petition impugns the validity of the order dated

¶16

05.08.2022 passed in Application below Exhibit “16” in Special Civil

¶17

Suit No.76 of 2020. Application is filed jointly by Plaintiff and
Defendant below Exhibit “16” to place on record a compromise pursis
dated 27.04.2022 effected and signed by both the parties to reconcile

¶18

and settle their dispute which is the subject matter of Special Civil Suit
No.76 of 2020.

¶19

3. There are six specific obligations stated in paragraph Nos.3 to 8 of the compromise pursis. These obligations relate to the subject

¶20

1 of 3

¶21

23.wp.2583.24.doc

¶22

matter of Special Civil Suit No.76 of 2020 and parties have agreed to
abide by the same, resultantly seeking relief of disposal of the aforesaid
Suit.

¶23

4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the Application on the ground that the facts and things mentioned in the compromise pursis are not part of the Suit and the decree cannot be passed as prayed for by the parties. There can be no impediment whatsoever in taking the compromise on record and passing the order for disposal in terms of the compromise pursis. It is clear that the Suit property stated in the Suit plaint finds specific mention in the compromise pursis.

¶24

5. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to relegate the parties to take any further steps before the Trial Court on the compromise pursis to dispose of the Suit proceedings by filing further Applications and the compromise pursis being merely taken on record with liberty granted to the parties. Hence compromise pursis dated 27.04.2022 is therefore directed to be taken on record by the Trial Court and the Suit be decreed in terms of the compromise pursis.

¶25

6. Needless to state that the order dated 05.08.2022 is quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to pass the order and draw up the decree in terms of the compromise pursis and proceed further, if parties so apply.

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

23.wp.2583.24.doc

¶28

7. In view of the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶29

 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶30

Ajay

¶31

Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.02.27 10:36:16 +0530

¶32

3 of 3

Mahant Kaushalendra Dasji v. Govind Gangadhar Kute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahant Kaushalendra Dasji v. Govind Gangadhar Kute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Shankar Jadhav and Ors. Vs Chandrashekhar Kashinath Shinde and Ors.

Kshetra Goraknath Math Cheravali Thr. Yogi Balanath Guru Kisannath Maharaj Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union Bank of India, Thr. Chief Manager Mr. Awnish Kumar Vs M/S. Shruti Developers Thr. Partners, Mr. Shyam Manohar Bade

Munni Altaf Balurgi Vs Nanasaheb Kalu Gaikwad Decd. Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Mrs. Sushiladevi Pannalal Goyal and Anr. Vs Mr. Suresh Rambhau Ladkat and Ors.

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the. Collector and Ors.