Disposed

Hari Prakash and Ors. v. Kamlesh Kumar Singh and Ors.

Patna HC11 Apr 2015MA/68/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalat disposed of four pending appeals relating to title suits involving arbitration award. Parties signed a compromise petition resolving disputes. Court accepted compromise despite absence of one party due to illness and declared compromise petition part of decree.

What did the court decide?

Appeals M.A. No. 68/79 of 1988 and F.A. No. 176/167 of 1988 disposed off in terms of compromise petition; compromise petition recorded as part of decree.

Hari Prakash and Ors. Vs Kamlesh Kumar Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

¶2

HELD AT HIGH COURT PATNA

¶3

MA No. 68 of 1988

¶4

Petitioner :Ram Ran Vijay Singh Respondent :Kamlesh Kumar Singh & Ors

¶5

With

¶6

M.A. 79 of 1988

¶7

Petitioner :Kamlesh Kumar Singh Respondent :Ram Ran Vijay Singh & Ors

¶8

With

¶9

F.A. 176 of 1988

¶10

Petitioner :Kamlesh Kr.Singh & Anr Respondent :Somaya Kr.Singh & Anr

¶11

With F.A. 167 of 1988 Petitioner :Ram Ran Vijay Singh & Anr Respondent :Somaya Kr.Singh & Ors

¶12

Present:-

¶13

Member(Judicial) :Mr. Justice Gopal Prasad

¶14

Member(Legal Profession) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Against the arbitration award two suits were filed, bearing Title Suit No. 383 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 385 of 1981 in the Court of Sub Judge, I, Patna. Both the suits were decided by a common order, dated 16,01,1988, against which F.A. No. 167 of 1988 and one M.A. No. 68 of 1988 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Against the said judgment and order, dated 16.01.1988, another set of F.A. No. 176 of 1988 and another M.A. No. 79 of 1988 were also filed before the High Court. However, all the four appeals while pending, the parties have filed a compromise petition duly signed by the parties and their Advocates.

¶17

The learned counsel for the parties submitted that all parties are present in Court, except Shashi Singh (appellant no. 1c) though it has been stated that she is not well though she is a party to the compromise petition and has put her signature and it is submitted that the parties have compromised in terms of the compromise petition

¶18

Hence, M.A. No. 68 of 1988, M.A. No. 79 of 1988, F.A. No. 176 of 1988 and F.A. No. 167 of 1988 are disposed off in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties and compromise petition, filed by the parties, shall be a part of the decree.

¶19

( Gopal Prasad, J. ) (Shashi Bhushan Kumar)

¶20

Member(Judicial) Member(Legal Profession) Date :11-04-2015

¶21

Petitioner/Petitioner's representative

¶22

Respondent/Respondent's representative

¶23

(Seal of the Authority)

Hari Prakash and Ors. v. Kamlesh Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Prakash and Ors. v. Kamlesh Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola Yadav @ Amrendra Yadav @ Amrender Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Rafi Mian @ Rafi Aalam Vs The State Of Bihar

Shekh Sakir Vs The State Of Bihar

Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs Hari Prakash and Ors.

Ram Ran Vijay Singh and Anr. Vs Somaya Kr.Singh and Ors.

Kamlesh Kr.Singh and Anr. Vs Somaya Kr.Singh and Anr.