Punjab-Haryana High Court
Phool Chand And Others vs Duli Chand And Others on 14 September, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.9.2011
Phool Chand and others ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Duli Chand and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant(s).
Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
CM No.13217-C of 2010 There is a delay of one day in filing this application for restoration of appeal.
For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of one day in filing the application for recalling the order dated 6.9.2010 is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM Nos.13218-C of 2010 This appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 6.9.2010. Vide this application, a prayer has been made to recall the order and the appeal be heard on merits.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. Order dated 6.9.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.
CM No.13219-C of 2011 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) 2 CM No.13220-C of 2011 A prayer has been made in this application to bring on record the LRs of appellant No.1-Phool Chand, who has expired on 12.2.1995.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection if this application is allowed and applicants as mentioned in para No.2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as Legal representatives of appellant No.1-Phool Chand (deceased).
Ordered accordingly.
CM No.13221-C of 2011 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.9936-C of 2011 A prayer has been made in this application to bring on record the LRs of respondent No.2-Sher Singh @ Shera, who has expired on 31.12.2004.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has no objection if this application is allowed and applicants as mentioned in para No.2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as Legal representatives of respondent No.2-Sher Singh(deceased).
Ordered accordingly.
CM No.9937-C of 2011 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.10051-C of 2011 A prayer has been made in this application to bring on record the LRs of appellant No.3-Deep Chand, who has expired on 26.10.2010.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection if this application is allowed and applicants as mentioned in para No.2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as Legal representatives of Deep Chand-appellant No.3 (deceased).
Ordered accordingly.
RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) 3CM Nos.10135 & 10136-C of 2011 Parties have filed these applications to place on record compromise effected between the parties and a prayer has been made to dispose of the appeal in terms of said compromise.
With the consent of the parties, the compromise is taken on record.
CMs stand disposed of.
RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) This is defendants' appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondents for joint possession was decreed.
Vide CM No.10136-C of 2011, a prayer has been made to dispose of this appeal in terms of the compromise dated 27.8.2011 which has been placed on record as Annexure-C with this appeal and original of the document is marked as 'CX'.
A compromise has been effected between the parties to this appeal. All the parties are duly represented before this Court by their respective lawyers. It is not in dispute that all the parties have signed/thumb marked the compromise deed placed on record in token of their acceptance of the same. According to the aforesaid compromise, the property in question has been divided by the parties and the plaintiff- respondents have agreed to the same and have no objection in case this appeal is disposed of/allowed in terms of compromise dated 27.8.2011 placed on record along with the application as Annexure-C (hereinafter called as Mark-CX).
The statement of the parties have also been recorded separately.
The aforesaid compromise has been signed/thumb marked by all the parties to this appeal. Sh. Sukhbir Singh on behalf of the RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) 4 defendant-appellants and Sh. Jai Bhagwan on behalf of the plaintiff- respondents have made statements before this Court which have been separately recorded accepting the aforesaid compromise and have prayed to dispose of this appeal in terms of the compromise and decreed the suit.
The parties who have made statements before this Court have been duly identified by their counsel. The parties shall be bound by the statements made before this Court. In view of the statements made by the parties before this Court and the compromise placed on record as Mark 'CX', this appeal is allowed in terms of the aforesaid compromise dated 27.8.2011 Mark 'CX'. This compromise shall be a part of the decree.
Disposed of.
September 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) 5 RSA No.1969 of 1990
Statement of Shri Sukhbir Singh son of Sh. Subha Chand, aged 50 years, agriculturist, resident of village Chirya, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani (Haryana), on S.A. I am the Legal Representative of appellant No.5-Subha Chand (defendant-appellant). The parties have settled the dispute as per compromise deed dated 27.8.2011 placed on record as Mark-CX. This appeal be disposed of/allowed in terms of the aforesaid compromise placed on record before this Court as Mark-CX. I have heard the statement of Sh.Jai Bhagwan son of Sh.Duli Chand which is correct and is accepted. All the appellants shall be bound by the compromise CX and the statement made by me before this Court.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE
September 14, 2011
ps
RSA No.1969 of 1990 (O&M) 6
RSA No.1969 of 1990
Statement of Shri Jai Bhagwan son of Duli Chand, aged 42 years, agriculturist, resident of village Chirya, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani (Haryana), on S.A. I am one of the the Legal Representative of plaintiff- respondent No.1-Duli Chand. As per compromise deed dated 27.8.2011, the parties to this appeal have compromised the dispute. We have settled the dispute as per compromise deed dated 27.8.2011 placed before this Court as Mark-CX. The plaintiff-respondents have no objection if this appeal is allowed/disposed of in term of the aforesaid compromise. The plaintiff-respondents and their legal heirs shall be bound by the compromise CX and the statement made by me before this Court as well.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE
September 14, 2011
ps