Dismissed¶15

Smt. Kunda Suresh Lahariya and Another v. Lalchand Balaram Lahariya (Expired) and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2025WP/3740/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 3740 of 2024; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; 2025:BHC-NAG:11129; Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.; unlawful compromise; order below Exh.88 dated 22.03.2024; RCS No.944/2012 Akola; original defendant Nos.3 and 4; parallel suit RCS No.267/2023; compromise pursis Exh.82; compromise not binding on non-parties; expeditious disposal within one year; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; Lalchand Balaram Lahariya; Kunda Suresh Lahariya.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Direction recorded that the learned trial Court decide RCS No.944/2012 within a period of one year from the date of the order. ¶15

Smt. Kunda Suresh Lahariya and Another vs Lalchand Balaram Lahariya (Expired) and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.03.2024 below Exh.88 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola in RCS No.944/2012, rejecting the application of the petitioners (original defendant Nos.3 and 4) as amounting to an unlawful compromise, calls for interference in writ jurisdiction.

¶11

Court's answer

No case for interference with the learned Trial Court's order rejecting the petitioners' application was made out; accordingly the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶15

Key takeaways

Recorded while considering the matter: it is settled law that a compromise between parties cannot be binding on the parties who are not party to the said compromise (the compromise pursis at Exh.82 having been only seen and filed, with no order passed on it). The sentence appears in the narrative following the trial Court's observations and its attribution (trial Court versus this Court) is ambiguous.¶14
On the joint statement of learned counsel for both parties that the suit pertains to the year 2012, the learned trial Court was to decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of the order (an ancillary scheduling direction, not determinative of the challenged order).obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.) — Writ Petition No.3740 of 2024, decided 14.10.2025: Petitioners (original defendant Nos.3 and 4) challenged the order dated 22.03.2024 below Exh.88 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola in RCS No.944/2012, whereby their application was rejected on the ground that it amounted to an unlawful compromise. The trial Court had noted that the petitioners had already filed RCS No.267/2023 in respect of the suit property, and that the compromise pursis at Exh.82 was only seen and filed with no order passed thereon. It was observed that a compromise between parties cannot be binding on parties who are not party to it. Finding no reason to interfere, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, recording (on the joint statement of counsel) that the trial Court shall decide the 2012 suit within one year.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:11129

¶2

1 74-WP-3740-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3740 OF 2024

¶5

Smt. Kunda Suresh Lahariya and Another Vs.

¶6

Lalchand Balaram Lahariya (Expired) and Others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A.G. Mate, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr. S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

¶9

CORAM: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J . DATED : 14th OCTOBER, 2025

¶10

Heard Mr. A.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.G. Mate, learned AGP for the respondent/State and Mr.S.B. Gandhe, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order below Exh.88 dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned 7^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola, in RCS No.944/2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner i.e. the original defendant Nos.3 and 4 was rejected on the ground that the same amount to an unlawful compromise.

¶12

Learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has already filed RCS No.267/2023, in respect of the suit property. The learned trial Court has observed that as far as the compromise pursis at Exh.82, is only seen and filed and

¶13

2 74-WP-3740-2024.odt

¶14

no order was passed in that regard. It is settled law that the compromise between parties cannot be binding on the parties who are not party to the said compromise. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that the suit pertains to the year 2012, therefore, the learned trial Court to decide the suit within a period of one year from today.

¶15

Considering the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. In view thereof, the present writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶16

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.)

¶17

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁

Smt. Kunda Suresh Lahariya and Another v. Lalchand Balaram Lahariya (Expired) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kunda Suresh Lahariya and Another v. Lalchand Balaram Lahariya (Expired) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pralhad S/O Sadashiv Gaidhane vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others

Hemant Vyankatrao Pande and Ors. vs Additional Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.

Parvin Bee Shaikh Asif vs Honble Chief Minister, Also the Minister of Urban Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Dnyaneshwar Nathe vs State of Maha., Thr. Additional Commissoiner, Amravati and Others

Junior Engineer Maha. Jivan Pradhikaran, Akot and Others vs Dattatreya Digambar Gawande and Others

Wasudeo S/O Atmaram Thakur vs the Gadchiroli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gadchiroli, Thr. General Manager and Anr.