On the last date of hearing, the Court found that the impugned order had been rendered infructuous as the parties had compromised at the National Lok Adalat, with decree holders stating they had taken possession of their shares. The second appeal was dismissed accordingly.
The second appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.5359 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5359 of 2012 Date of Decision.02.05.2018
Jaspal @ Shushil and others ......Appellants
Vs
Satya Devi and others .....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Vishmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for appellant No.1 and 2.
Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for appellant No.3 to 5.
Mr. Manu R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 9.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the regular second appeal had been rendered infructuous as while preparing the final decree, the matter has been compromised by the respective parties.
Faced with that situation, learned counsel for the appellants had sought time for seeking instructions from his client. In this view of the matter, the case was adjourned for today. Today also, there is a request made for adjournment.
Learned counsel for the respondents has shown order of Lok Adalat dated 08.04.2017 in case of 'Satya Devi Vs. Shanti Devi etc.' which was the original memo of parties in the trial Court whereby the decree holders have suffered a statement that they have taken their possession. The
order dated 08.04.2007 reads thus:-
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.07 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.5359 of 2012 -1-
“The file taken up today and put up before the National Lok Adalat for compromise. Sh. H.S. Chahal, counsel for the applicants along with applicant Birbal Dass made statement that the applicants have taken the possession of their due share, so they do not want to proceed with the present application. In view of the above said statement, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn being fully satisfied. File be consigned to the Record Room.”
In view of the aforementioned fact, I am of the view that no cause of action survives in the present appeal, for, the appeal had been filed against the drawing of preliminary decree.
The second appeal is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. The order dated 08.04.2017 shall be formed part of the record.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
May 02, 2018 Pankaj*
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.07 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal stands dismissed as infructuous due to compromise of the suit at the Lok Adalat.
Whether the appeal against the drawing of the preliminary decree survives after the нанесение decree holders have attained possession.
Jaspal @ Shushil and others
Satya Devi and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
