Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Lal vs Shyam Lal on 13 November, 2017
Author: Virendra Kumar Mathur
Bench: Virendra Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 361 / 2007
Madan Lal s/o Ruli Chand, age 55 years, by caste Mahajan, r/o
Ward No.2, village Chhanibadi, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
LRs of Shyam Lal s/o Ram Lal, by caste Mahajan (Nuvawala), r/o
near Anaj Mandi, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh:
1. Dropadi Devi w/o late Shyam Lal,
2. Kanhaiya Lal s/o late Shyam Lal,
3. Shiv Kumar s/o late Shyam Lal,
4. Mahendra Kumar s/o late Shyam Lal,
5. Baldeo Kumar s/o late Shyam Lal,
6. Sushil Kumar s/o late Shyam Lal,
7. Pawan Goyal s/o late Shyam Lal,
8. Narendra Kumar s/o late Shyam Lal,
9. Smt Maya D/o late Shyam Lal w/o Suresh,
10. Smt Manju D/o late Shyam Lal w/o Bhagwati Prasad,
all r/o Hawai Jahaj Wali Haveli, Ward No.2, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr V.K. Bhadu
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment 13/11/2017 Counsel for the parties have moved applications IA No.2029/2017 and 2030/2017, with identical prayer for disposal of this appeal in terms of compromise. The applicants have (2 of 3) [CFA-361/2007] submitted that present appeal has been preferred against judgment & decree dated 30.03.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhadra in Civil Original case No.07/2002 (100/1995), whereby suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. It is submitted that now the appellant and the respondent have entered into compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and have also signed a written compromise on 06.11.2017.
It is also stated that sole respondent Shyam Lal has died during pendency of the present appeal and his legal representatives have been taken on record. All legal heirs of deceased respondent Shyam Lal have given Power-of-Attorney to Kanhaiya Lal s/o late Shyam Lal, to take further steps in the present case. Copy of the compromise and the power-of-attorney have been enclosed in original with the application.
As per the compromise, the appellant and the respondents have mutually agreed that present Civil First Appeal (No.361/2007) may be allowed by this Court and the judgment & decree dated 30.03.2007 may be quashed.
The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), who recorded that appellant Madan Lal and one of legal heirs of deceased respondent Shyam Lal- Shyam Lal both were present in person, with their respective counsel. Power of attorney has been executed by other LRs of Shyam Lal in favour of Kanhaiya Lal, which is placed on record. The contents of the compromise have been read over to the parties present before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), which they accepted to be true and correct. Appellant Madan Lal was identified by his counsel and the (3 of 3) [CFA-361/2007] power-of-attorney-holder of LRs of Shyam Lal- Kanhaiya Lal was identified by his counsel.
In view of the above, the aforesaid power-of-attorney executed by LRs of deceased respondent Shyam Lal and the compromise dated 06.11.2017 entered into between appellant Madan Lal and power-of-attorney-holder Kanhaiya Lal, on behalf of all LRs of deceased respondent Shyam Lal, are taken on record.
In view of the compromise, the judgment & decree dated 30.03.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhadra in Civil Original case No.07/2002 (100/1995) is quashed and set aside. The compromise dated 06.11.2017 shall remain part of the decree. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.
mma