Partly allowed

Ranchhod Singh and Anr. v. Smt.Sharda and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2018CW/6304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur entertained a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an observation made by a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate. The trial court had rejected a prayer to place a compromise deed on record but commented that such a deed would not alter rights or liabilities absent possession in the record. The High Court quashed this observation, holding

What did the court decide?

The observation made by the trial Court dated 17.4.2017 regarding the effect of the compromise deed was quashed.

Ranchhod Singh and Anr. Vs Smt.Sharda and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 6304/2017

¶3

Ran Chhod Singh S/o Goma Ram Ji, aged 62 years, By Caste Mali

¶4

Dhanraj S/o Ranchhod Ji Mali All Resident of Barli Mandawata Mandore District Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt Sharda W/o Jagdish Ji Panwar, By Caste Mali R/o Naya Pura Mandore Through Her Power Of Attorney Shri Jagdish Panwar S/o Gopi Kishan Ji R/o Narsingh Vihar Lal Sagar Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶8

Shri Goma Ram Ji S/o Gordhan Ram Ji Mali, By Caste Mali 3. Mahendra Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh Mali, R/o Barli Mandawata Mandore Jodhpur Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. R. Soni. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. L. Thanvi.

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

13/11/2018

¶14

By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the following observation made by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in its order dated 17.4.2017 :

¶15

“jkthukek ds rF;ksa dks Lohd`fr gksus dk rdZ izfroknh vf/koDrk dk ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd mDr jkthukek LosfPNd] fcuk fdlh ncko ds is”k fd;k tkuk o i{kdkjksa ds e/; rLnhd fd;k tkuk vknsf”kdk esa mYysf[kr ugha gSA vr% jkthukek LosfPNd fd;k x;k gks] ;g vknsf”kdk ds voyksdu ls izdV ugha gksrk gS A“

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-6304/2017]

¶18

The facts in brief relevant for the decision of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners.

¶19

During the course of suit proceedings, a compromise dated 17.12.2016 executed between the parties and duly signed by petitioners and respondents was placed before the trial Court for passing appropriate orders.

¶20

Since some of the parties in the compromise were not the parties in the suit, the trial Court declined to pass order in terms of the compromise.

¶21

In the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed an application dated 20.3.2017, under Section 151 CPC and prayed that the compromise dated 17.12.2016 be placed in Part-D of the record.

¶22

The learned trial Court vide its order dated 17.4.2017 though rejected the said application filed by the plaintiff, but however, observed that the contention of the defendents’ counsel that the facts mentioned in the compromise have been admitted by the plaintiff cannot be countenanced.

¶23

Mr. H. R. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned trial Court while rejecting the subject application, vide impugned order ought not to have made the above referred observation, particularly when the compromise dated 17.12.2016 has been kept on record. According to Mr. Soni, once the document has been allowed to remain on record, its effect has to be seen by the trial Court while deciding the suit finally.

¶24

Mr. B. L. Thanvi, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supporting the order passed by the learned trial Court, contended that the trial Court was justified in making such observation, as no inference can be drawn on the basis of compromise in question.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-6304/2017]

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶28

As far as execution of the compromise dated 17.12.2016 and the signature of the plaintiff and the defendants thereupon are concerned, the same is undisputed. Even in the joint application filed by the petitioners and respondents, they have admitted to have signed and executed the contentious compromise.

¶29

In considered opinion of this Court, once the document has been retained on record, the trial Court should have refrained from making observation regarding its impact and effect on the rival parties’ rights and responsibilities. The following observation made by the trial Court in the penultimate part of the order dated 17.4.2017 are uncalled for and unwarranted :

¶30

“jkthukek ds rF;ksa dks Lohd`fr gksus dk rdZ izfroknh vf/koDrk dk ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd mDr jkthukek LosfPNd] fcuk fdlh ncko ds is”k fd;k tkuk o i{kdkjksa ds e/; rLnhd fd;k tkuk vknsf”kdk esa mYysf[kr ugha gSA vr% jkthukek LosfPNd fd;k x;k gks] ;g vknsf”kdk ds voyksdu ls izdV ugha gksrk gS A“

¶31

The above observation are thus quashed.

¶32

Needless to observe that the trial Court shall be free to draw independent inference of rival contentions, including the aspect of possession of the contesting parties, in relation to the compromise dated 17.12.2016, while finally deciding the suit.

¶33

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶35

A.Arora/-81.

Ranchhod Singh and Anr. v. Smt.Sharda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranchhod Singh and Anr. v. Smt.Sharda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doongar Singh Vs Khem Raj and Ors.

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs Shri O.P. Tripathi

Om Babu Vyas Vs Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Rajesh Vs Mukesh Kumar and Anr.

Moda Lal Vs Mishri Lal

Sushil Kumar Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.