Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satvinder Singh vs Roshan Lal And Others on 14 July, 2015
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 46 of 2015.
Date of decision: 14.07.2015
.
Satvinder Singh Petitioner.
Versus
Roshan Lal and others Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Ms. Monika Shukla, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)
The Judgement debtor/petitioner herein suffered a decree of mandatory injunction whereunder the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, ordered for the demolition of that portion of the house of the judgement debtor/petitioner herein which stood raised on the land owned by the decree holder/respondent No.1 herein. The decree aforesaid rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nadaun, went to execution. The Executing Court on an 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:13 :::HCHP 2application filed before it under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC at the instance of the decree holder/respondent No.1 directed the judgement debtor/petitioner to within .
one month remove that portion of his house which stood raised upon the land owned by the respondent No.1 herein/decree holder. However, the order aforesaid rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divison), Nadaun on a petition as laid before him under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC by the decree holder/respondent No.1 herein has come to be assailed at the instance of the judgement debtor/petitioner herein. During the pendency of the civil revision petition before this Court the counsels for the contesting parties have placed on record a joint application instituted under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC by the parties at lis accompanied by a compromise entered into inter se the decree holder and the judgement debtor. A prayer has been made in the application that the compromise be accepted and concomitantly a compromise decree be rendered by this Court. With a portrayal in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the settlement deed accompanying the application ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:13 :::HCHP 3 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC of the decree holder/respondent herein having stood adequately recompensed by the judgement debtor qua that portion .
of the latters house which exists and stands raised on the land owned by the decree holder besides with a revelation therein that hence the decree holder would not be pressing for demolition of the aforesaid portion of the house of the judgement debtor as divulged in site plan Ext.PW-2/B. Consequently, the consensual volition/settlement qua the suit land/suit property arrived at inter se the parties at lis ought to be revered by this Court. In aftermath, while paying reverence to it, the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is allowed. The suit of the plaintiff stands decreed as compromised in terms of the compromise arrived at inter se the parties at contest. The impugned order of 14.1.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur in Execution Petition No. 33/2006 is quashed and set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
14th July, 2015. (Sureshwar Thakur)
™ Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:13 :::HCHP