Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Navratan Lal Sharma vs Radha Mohan Sharma And Another on 14 July, 2022
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 210/2014
Navratan Lal Sharma adopted son of Late Shri Surajmal, age
about 61 years, resident of Shri Ram Gopal Pura urf Bhojyawas,
Pando ki Dhani, Sirsi Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
1. Radha Mohan Sharma son of Shri Durga Sahai Sharma,
Director Krishna Gopal Build Estate Private Ltd, resident of plot
No.44, Ganga Vihar Colony, Sirsi Road, Jaipur presently accused
in Central Jail, Sanganeri Gate, Agra Road, Jaipur.
2. Pinkcity Highland Realcon Pvt. Ltd. through director, Gaurav
Gupta son of Late Shri Rajiv Gupta, resident of plot No.B-27,
Dev Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Sub Registrar (First), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Sanganer, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur.
5. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Jaipur Metropolitan,
Jaipur (Raj.).
----Defendants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra
Mr. Ajay Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pallav Choudhary
Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
14/07/2022
1. This first appeal was filed by appellant-plaintiff feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.75/2013 whereby and whereunder his civil suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against respondent- purchaser-Pinkcity Highland Realcon Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed. (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 09:34:42 PM)
(2 of 2) [CFA-210/2014]
2. During course of first appeal, appellant-plaintiff-seller and respondent-purchser-Pinkcity Highland Realcon Pvt. Ltd have entered into compromise and a compromise dated 18.05.2022 with corrigendum compromise dated 08.07.2022 have been placed on record along with application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
3. The compromise have been attested in presence of concerned parties by the Registrar (Judicial).
4. Learned counsel for both parties submits that the compromise may be taken on record and first appeal may be disposed of in terms of compromise.
5. This Court, without entering into the merits of appeal but without giving any liberty to get restored the first appeal, is of considered opinion that when both parties have entered into the terms of compromise and have agreed to abide by the terms of compromise, this appeal deserves to be disposed of accordingly.
6. Hence the compromise dated 18.05.2022 along with corrigendum compromise dated 08.07.2022 is taken on record and the first appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise.
7. The compromise dated 18.05.2022 along with corrigendum compromise dated 08.07.2022 shall be treated as part of this order.
8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the application seeking refund of court-fees is dismissed.
9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SAURABH/98 (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 09:34:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)