Allowed

Hari Ram Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2010CW/7358/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order excluding defendants from filing a written statement. Upon certification of a dispute settlement and execution of a compromise deed, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to attest the deed and pass a decree.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order setting aside rights to file written statement is set aside; parties directed to appear for trial court decree.

Hari Ram Gupta Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7358 of 2006

¶4

Hari Ram Gupta son of late Shri Sohan Lal and Others

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Ashok Kumar Gupta son of Shri Bal Ram Gupta and Others

¶7

Date of Order :::: March 11^th 2010

¶8

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh

¶9

Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Counsel for the Respondents

¶10

¶11

: By the Court

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners against the order dated 01.06.2006 by which the application submitted by the plaintiffs under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. for closing the rights of the defendant-petitioners No.1 to 4 for filing the written-statement has been allowed.

¶14

Before this Court the parties moved an application bearing No.9147 dated 23.02.2010, wherein it has been stated in Para 6 of the application that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise-deed has also been executed by all the parties, which has been filed before this Court, along with the said application.

¶15

-2-

¶16

In the application bearing No.9147, it has been prayed that the application may be allowed and the original compromise-deed, which has been filed, along with the application be taken on record and the writ petition may be allowed.

¶17

In support of the application, an affidavit of Neeraj Gupta, the petitioner No.4 as well as Ashok Kumar Gupta son of Shri Bal Ram Gupta, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has been filed admitting the contents of the aforesaid application.

¶18

In view of the above, it is directed that the Registry would send the original compromise-deed filed, along with the said application to the learned trial Court, which would attest the same and decide the suit in the light of the terms of compromise and pass the decree accordingly.

¶19

The writ petition as prayed in the application is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.06.2006 is set aside.

¶20

The miscellaneous application bearing No.4649 dated 28.01.2010 and the miscellaneous application bearing No.9147 stand disposed of accordingly.

¶21

The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 16.04.2010 for the aforesaid purpose.

¶22

(Dalip Singh), J.

¶23

Ashok/

Hari Ram Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta

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

Krishana Murari Saini Vs Rent Tribunal Alwar and Anr.

Madhav Grah Nirman Sahakari Sa Vs Gulab and Ors.

Chuttan Alias Vs Add District and Sessions Judg

Bansidhar Vs Smt.Savitri Devi

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.and Anr. Vs Ram Bhaarosi

Gyarsi Lal Saini and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.