Chand Thakur v. Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jul 2026RSA/94/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of regular second appeal as compromised; joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC; recording of compromise and framing of decree; Ext. C-1; objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 151 CPC dismissed by Rent Controller Shimla; appeal dismissed by Additional District Judge (1) Shimla; affidavits and separate statements of parties; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Romesh Verma, Judge; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as compromised between the parties in terms of the joint application (Ext. C-1); registry directed to frame the decree incorporating the application; pending applications disposed of. ¶¶18

Chand Thakur Vs Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RSA No. 94 of 2026 Date of decision: 15.07.2026

¶3

Smt. Chand Thakur ...Appellant.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Vinod Kumar Mehta & another

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Coram:

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the appellant : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents : Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priti Steta, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶11

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

¶12

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1) Shimla dated 28^th of March 2026, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant/objector came to be dismissed, and the findings as returned by the learned Rent Controller Shimla dated 18^th of July, 2024, whereby the objection petition filed by the present appellant under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

¶13

The matter was listed before this Court on 9^th of July 2026, and on the said date, the learned counsel for the parties had apprised this Court that an endeavour has been made to settle the matter inter se the parties.

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

-2-

¶16

The learned Senior Counsel (s) for the parties have placed on record a joint application filed under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC for recording of the compromise. It contains the details and the terms and conditions on which the parties have agreed to settle their dispute inter se them. The registry is directed to register the said CMP. The joint application is exhibited as Ext. C-1, along with the affidavits, and it shall form part of the decree.

¶17

The joint application is duly supported by the affidavits of the present appellant, Smt. Chand Thakur and respondent-Mr. Vinod Kumar Mehta. They have recorded their statements, separately.

¶18

Consequently, in view of the terms and conditions which have been entered between the parties, the present appeal is disposed of as having been compromised between them in terms of the joint application.

¶19

The registry is directed to frame the decree, and the application shall be made part of the same.

¶20

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶21

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶22

July 15, 2026. (Nisha)

Chand Thakur v. Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Thakur v. Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NHAI Vs Ram Krishan and Others

Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir Vs Jaspal Singh Negi

Ravinder Pal Singh Vs Pankaj Chandel

Sukhwinder Kaur @ Amrit Kaur Vs Ravinder Singh

NHAI Vs Rajesh Kumar and Another

Sushil Kumar and Others Vs NHAI and Others