Md. Sakib Vs Sri Gulam Mustfa Quraishi — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Md. Sakib Vs Sri Gulam Mustfa Quraishi — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 28.01.2023 and 27.01.2015; legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent substituted as Respondent nos.1(a) and 1(b); pending I.A(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Second Appeal, in which both original parties had died during pendency and the matter had been settled with vacation of the suit premises, should be disposed of in terms of the parties' compromise after substitution of the deceased sole respondent's legal heirs.

Court's answer

The substitution petition is allowed and the legal heirs of the sole respondent, as fully detailed in Para-9 of I.A. No.5730 of 2024, are directed to be substituted in the Cause Title of the Memo of Appeal in his place as Respondent nos.1(a) and 1(b).

Ratio / Principle

The instant Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 28.01.2023 and 27.01.2015 filed in I.A No. 5730 of 2024 and I.A No. 509 of 2022 respectively.

Key takeaways

Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.A. No. 42 of 2010 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; decision dated 24.06.2024): Plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Title Eviction Appeal No.01 of 2009 (which had reversed the judgment and decree in Title Eviction Suit No.40 of 2003) was disposed of in terms of the parties' compromise dated 28.01.2023 and 27.01.2015, filed in I.A No. 5730 of 2024 and I.A No. 509 of 2022 respectively. Both the original plaintiff and defendant died during pendency; the original plaintiff/appellant had been substituted vide order dated 25.03.2022, and the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent were substituted as Respondent nos.1(a) and 1(b). Under the terms of the compromise the suit premises had been vacated and the plaintiff/appellant had no grievance against the defendant/respondent. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of. No merits of the eviction dispute were adjudicated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 42 of 2010

Md. Sakib .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus Sri Gulam Mustfa Quraishi .. ... ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

......... For the Appellant (s) : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate Mr. R. N. Chatterjee, Advocate

16/ 24.06.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by learned 1^st Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Title Eviction Appeal No.01 of 2009 by which the judgment and decree passed in Title Eviction Suit No.40 of 2003 has been reversed.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in pursuant to the settlement, the defendant/ respondent has also vacated the suit premises.

3. I.A. No.509 of 2022 was filed by the original plaintiff and defendant along with the photocopy of the agreement for compromise dated 22.01.2015. Under the terms of the compromise, the suit premises has been vacated and the plaintiff /appellant has no grievance against the defendant/ respondent.

4. During pendency of the instant Second Appeal, both the original plaintiff/defendant have died.

5. I.A. No.5730 of 2024 has been filed for substitution of sole respondent/ defendant who died during pendency of the instant Second Appeal leaving behind his legal heirs as fully detailed in Para-9 of the said I.A. and also mentioning therein that the matter has been amicably settled.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent raises no serious objection.

7. Under the circumstances, the substitution petition is allowed and the legal heirs of sole respondent as fully detailed in Para-9 of the said I.A are directed to be substituted in Cause Title of the Memo of Appeal in his place as Respondent nos.1 (a) and 1(b).

8. Original plaintiff/ appellant has already been substituted vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed by this Court.

1

Under the circumstances, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 28.01.2023 and 27.01.2015 filed in I.A No. 5730 of 2024 and I.A No. 509 of 2022 respectively.

Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

Sandeep/

Uploaded.

2