Disposed

Husna v. Abdul Shakoor

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2021CFA/23/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal against a dismissal of a specific performance suit was disposed of. The primary appeal was dismissed because the parties mutually compromised, rendering the appeal moot. Separate applications to implead a legal representative and an external applicant were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as parties settled; compromise dated 22.11.2021 taken on record. Application to implead legal representative allowed; application to implead Hakam Ali dismissed.

Husna Vs Abdul Shakoor — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 23/2015

Husna

----Appellant

Versus

Abdul Shakoor

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. SG Ojha For Applicants Mr. VK Bhadu

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶10

Order

¶11

08/12/2021

¶12

This first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff, being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.24/2013 (32/2009) whereby and whereunder the civil suit for specific performance of contract and injunction of appellant has been dismissed..

¶13

The counsel for the appellant submits that an agreement to sale dated 29.01.2007 was entered into between the appellantand respondent. The appellant is pursuing his civil suit for specific performance to get sale deed registered, pursuit to the agreement to sale dated 29.01.2007.

¶14

During the pendency of this first appeal, respondentdefendant Abdul Shakool has passed away on 16.09.2020 and the appellant-plaintiff has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 &

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CFA-23/2015]

¶17

9 CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent Abdul Shakool on record.

¶18

The legal representative of the deceased respondent have put in appearance through their advocated Mr. S.G. Ojha, who has filed vakalat nama in the Registry.

¶19

Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the legal representatives of deceased respondent on the application under Order 22 Rule 4 (Inward No.02/21).

¶20

As far as the application under Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 CPC is concerned, the same is not opposed by the legal representatives. Hence, the application is allowed and the legal representatives are taken on record.

¶21

Since the legal representatives are duly represented by counsel, notice need not be issued.

¶22

The appellant has filed another application (Inward No.03/2021) dated 22.11.2021 under Section 151 CPC alleging inter alia that the legal representatives of deceased respondent Abdul Shakool have entered into compromise with the appellant and have agreed to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the agreement dated 29.01.2007. The written compromise dated 22.11.2021 arrived at between the appellant and legal representatives of deceased respondent through Manjur Ali has been placed on record.

¶23

The counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent jointly submit that since both the parties have mutually settled the dispute out of the Court and on the basis of the compromise dated 22.11.2021, the respondents are ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, therefore, this first appeal may be disposed of accordingly, in terms of

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CFA-23/2015]

¶26

compromise and the compromise dated 22.11.2021 may be taken on record.

¶27

Thus, the application filed under Section 151 CPC to take on record the compromise dated 22.11.2021 is allowed. If the legal representatives of deceased respondent have entered into the compromise dated 22.11.2021 and are ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant pursuant to sale agreement dated 29.01.2007, there is no need to pass any order by this Court in this appeal and the appeal does not survive on merits. Accordingly, the present first appeal stands disposed of.

¶28

In the present appeal one another application (Inward No.01/21) has been filed by one Shri Hakam Ali under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as party respondent alleging inter alia that for the suit property, defendant Abdul Shakool had entered into agreement to sale with him on 25.04.2012. The copy of the agreement dated 25.04.2012 is placed on record with the application.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the applicant.

¶30

Since this Court has not considered the first appeal on merits and the first appeal has been disposed of merely on the basis of mutual out of court settlement between the parties, otherwise also applicant is placing reliance on separate agreement dated 25.04.2012 with respondent Abdul Shakool, whereas present appeal was filed for seeking specific purpose of agreement dated 29.01.2007 with respondent Abdul Shakool, therefore, the applicant is not required to be impleaded as party respondent in the present appeal. If, applicant wants to claim any independent right and interest in the suit property on the basis of his

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CFA-23/2015]

¶33

agreement dated 25.04.2012, the applicant is free to take appropriate remedy in law for adjudication his rights.

¶34

With these observation the application (Inward No.01/2021) is also disposed of. All other pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶35

(SUDESH BANSAL),J
31-Anshul/-

Husna v. Abdul Shakoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husna v. Abdul Shakoor

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

Malkeet Kaur Vs State Bank of India

Assitant Commercial Tax Department, Circle-B, Bikaner Vs M/S Varsha Ritu

Manisha Sehgal Vs Lokesh Kumar Maggo

Kum Paras Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyamsundar Vs Satyanarayan

Suman Kanar Vs Kashi Ram