Jaisaram S/O Shri Kanaram, Vs Sohan S/O Noparam

Prakash Kanwar D/o Ummedsingh, R/o Village Anokhu, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.). At Present W/o Ladusingh, R/o Village Mundara, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.

¶12

Vimla Kanwar D/o Salad Kanwar, Grand Maternal Daughter Of Ummed Singh W/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Village Malgaon, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶13

Machchhu Kanwar D/o Salad Kanwar, Grand Maternal Daughter Of Ummed Singh, R/o Village Malgoan, Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur.

¶14

Bhagwan Singh S/o Om Kanwar W/o Mohan Singh, R/o Village Bhawala, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶15

Kiran Kanwar D/o Om Kanwar W/o Mohan Singh, R/o Bhawala, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶16

Maya Kanwar D/o Om Kanwar W/o Mohan Singh, R/o Bhalwa, Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur.

¶17

Kiran Kanwar D/o Santu Kanwar W/o Narpat Singh, R/o Mundara, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.

¶18

Mahendra Singh S/o Ratu Kanwar, R/o Village Mundara, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.

¶19

Patwari Halka, Anokhu.

¶20

Tehsildar, Dhod.

¶21

Sub-Registrar, Dhod.

[2025:RJ-JP:40471]

[CFA-1090/2025]

(2 of 4)

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Sikar.

¶26

Shobh Singh S/o Samer Singh, R/o Village Anokhu Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶30

Order

¶31

06/10/2025

¶32

The present First Appeal has been filed by and on behalf of the sole appellant-plaintiff-Jaisaram.

¶33

During course of first appeal, appellant-plaintiff-Jaisaram has entered into compromise with the respondents-defendants and is agreeable to withdraw his civil suit, filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 30.03.2015, and for declaration of sale deed dated 14.08.2017 as null and void and consequently, grant of permanent injunction. The subject property is of land bearing Khasra No.97 measuring 3.05 hectare, situated at village Anokhu Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. As a consequence of withdrawal of civil suit, judgment and decree dated 20.05.2025, passed by Additional District Judge No.4, District Sikar, also does not sustain, hence, the appellant-plaintiff is agreeable to quash and set aside the impugned decree as well, as a consequence of withdrawal of his civil suit.

¶34

A written compromise has been placed on record along with an Application (I.A. No.1/2025). With the consent of counsel for both the parties, original compromise is taken on record.

[2025:RJ-JP:40471]

[CFA-1090/2025]

(3 of 4)

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 12, having instructions from the respective respondents-defendants, admits the execution of compromise and the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶39

Appellant-plaintiff is directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur to depose his statements to attest/verify the compromise placed on record.

¶40

The compromise placed on record by the parties has been attested/verified by the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under the statements made by the appellantplaintiff. As per compromise, civil suit No. 90/2017, filed by the appellant-plaintiff is permitted to be withdrawn and consequentially, the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.05.2025, passed by Additional District Judge No.4, District Sikar, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶41

Accordingly, the instant first appeal stands disposed of. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶42

Counsel for the appellant prays for refund of Court fees i.e. Rs.54,410/-, paid by appellant in the first appeal. 10. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C. Subramaniam [(2021) 3 SCC 560] , it has been urged that appellant-plaintiff entered into compromise with the respondentsdefendants with a spirit to settle the dispute out of Court, hence, provision of Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, should be made applicable to the case of

[2025:RJ-JP:40471]

[CFA-1090/2025]

(4 of 4)

appellant as well and court fees paid by the appellant-plaintiff in the first appeal be refunded.

¶47

On the strength of proposition of law expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Subramaniam (supra) this Court finds that the benefit of Section 65-B of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 can be extended to the methods of out of Court settlement of disputes, which are not specifically enumerated under Section 89 of CPC, if parties to the litigation settle their inter-se dispute mutually without intervention of Court. Since, the appellant has settled the dispute involved in the first appeal without intervention of the Court but with the spirit of Lok Adalat, therefore, as an incentive at least, the Court Fee paid by appellant in the present appeal should allow to be refunded to promote other litigants as well. Thus, Court Fee paid by appellant in this First Appeal is directed to be refunded to appellant.

¶48

Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur is directed to do the needful to return the Court fee.

¶49

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶50

pcg/33

Jaisaram S/O Shri Kanaram, v. Sohan S/O Noparam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaisaram S/O Shri Kanaram, v. Sohan S/O Noparam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaypal Jakar S/O Late Shri Manphool Ram Jakhar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kesar Devi W/O. Late Kishorelal Ghosi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Soniya Kumari D/O Balveer , Vs Ravindra Kumar Son of Shri Keshav Singh

Gayatri Devi W/O Late Kudeep Singh Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Shahbaj S/O Intjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chairman Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Sunder Bai Wife of Shri Babu Lal