Allowed

Poonam v. Jagjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2013FAO-M/364/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the matrimonial appeal filed by Poonam against her husband Jagjit Singh as withdrawn, accepting a compromise agreement entered into during the pendency of the appeal and supported by clear statements of record.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Application was disposed of. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.

Poonam Vs Jagjit Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CM No.18308-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-364 of 2010 (O & M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No.18308-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-364 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 04.9.2013

Poonam

...... Appellant

VERSUS

Jagjit Singh

…...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH

¶11

-.-

¶12

Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the applicant/appellant with the applicant/appellant in person.

¶13

Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the nonapplicant/respondent with non-applicant/respondent in person.

¶14

¶15

S.S. SARON, J.

¶16

CM No.18308-CII of 2013

¶17

Notice of CM.

¶18

Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the non-

¶19

applicant/respondent accepts notice.

¶20

The civil miscellaneous application has been filed for

¶21

placing on record the compromise dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure A-1)

¶22

and for exemption from filing certified copy of the same.

¶23

Amit Kaundal 2013.09.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CM No.18308-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-364 of 2010 (O & M)

¶25

-2-

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Accordingly, true photocopy of the compromise dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure A-1) attached with the civil miscellaneous application is taken on record.

¶27

CM stands disposed of.

¶28

FAO No.M-364 of 2010(O &M)

¶29

On the last date of hearing, it was submitted that the parties had entered into a compromise and in view of the compromise, the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn. Time was taken for placing on record copy of the compromise. The compromise (Annexure A-1) has been taken on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶31

The statements of the parties have been recorded on oath in Court today. Both the parties have accepted the compromise, which is exhibited on record as Ex.C-1. The appellant has stated that she is withdrawing the appeal in view of the compromise and she has received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for herself and the minor daughter of the parties. It is stated that she is withdrawing the appeal on her own free will and desire and without any pressure or undue influence of anyone. Besides, she has not colluded with the respondent for withdrawing the appeal. It is also stated by her that she is aware of the consequences of withdrawing the appeal is that the marriage between her and the respondent would stand dissolved.

¶32

Jagjit Singh-respondent in his statement has also accepted

¶33

Amit Kaundal 2013.09.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CM No.18308-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-364 of 2010 (O & M)

¶35

-3-

¶36

the compromise (Ex.C-1) and stated that because of the compromise (Ex.C-1), the appellant is withdrawing her appeal. It is also stated that there is no collusion between him and the appellant to enter into the compromise and withdrawing the cases against each other. He has made his statement of his own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence of anyone.

¶37

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.01.2004. On account of matrimonial dispute between them, the respondentJagjit Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. The petition was allowed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

¶38

During pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise on 03.04.2013 (Ex.C-1). In terms of the compromise, the parties are to withdraw all cases against each other. Besides, the appellant has received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for herself and the minor daughter of the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant and the appellant herself have prayed for withdrawing the appeal. In view of the compromise and statements of the parties, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection to the withdrawing of the appeal by the appellant.

¶39

We have gone through the statements of the parties and the compromise (Ex.C-1) that has been entered into and signed by the Amit Kaundal 2013.09.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

CM No.18308-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-364 of 2010 (O & M)

¶41

-4-

¶42

parties. It is lawful for the parties to enter into such a compromise. Besides, the parties have not colluded with each other in entering into the compromise. The parties in fact want to part ways amicably and therefore, there is no reason or other legal ground as to why the compromise should not be accepted and allow the appellant to withdraw her appeal. A suit can be compromised between the parties in terms of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C.' - for short). Besides, in terms of Section 107(2) C.P.C., the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.

¶43

The Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh Vs. Pargat Singh and others, 1997(1) Apex Court Journal 178 held that counsel for the appellant has power to make a statement on instructions from the party to withdraw an appeal. No force was found in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner therein who contended that his counsel had withdrawn the appeal from the Court of Additional District Judge even though he had not authorized him to do so. The order allowing withdrawing of the appeal was challenged on the ground that the petitioner therein had not authorized his counsel to withdraw the appeal and the Court had no power to dismiss it except to decide it on merits. It was held that the counsel has power to make a statement on instructions from party to withdraw the appeal and the Court has power to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn without going into the merits of the matter. The action taken by the counsel it was Amit Kaundal 2013.09.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

CM No.18308-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-364 of 2010 (O & M)

¶45

-5-

¶46

held was consistent with the powers he had under Order 3, Rule 4 C.P.C. Besides, Order 23 Rules 1(1) and (4) give power to the party to abandon the claim filed wholly or in part. By operation of Section 107(2) CPC, it equally applies to the appeal and the appellate Court has co-extensive power to permit the appellant to give up his appeal against the respondent either as a whole or part of the relief. It was further held that even after admitting the appeal under Order 41 Rule 9 CPC, the Court has power to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn on the basis of such statement of the counsel without going into the merits of the matter and deciding under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. No illegality was found in the order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.

¶47

In the present case, as already noticed, the appellant and her learned counsel have prayed for withdrawing the appeal which can be permitted especially when the appellant has been apprised of and been made aware of the consequences. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and the same is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶48

Judge

¶49

(S. P. Bangarh ) Judge

¶50

September 04, 2013 G. Bhardwaj/A.Kaundal

¶51

Amit Kaundal 2013.09.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Poonam v. Jagjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam v. Jagjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Hans Raj Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sukhjit Kaur Vs Jarnail Kaur etc.

Balbir Singh Vs Harnek Singh and Anr.

Jaswinder Singh Vs Surinder Singh & Ors.

Gurmeet Singh Vs Loveleen Kaur