Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Date : 29-04-2019 Heard Mr. K. M. Mahanta learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. J.Sarma and Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

The present petitioner preferred the connected RSA 145/2017 against the present opposite parties challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below and as per the said finding of the courts below, the suit filed for ejctement of the present petitioner by the opposite parties was decreed. During the pendency of the connected second appeal at the admission stage when the appeal was fixed for admission on 11.8.2017, the learned conducting counsel for the appellant petitioner in presence of conducting counsel for the respondents opposite parties proposed before this court that he has the instruction from the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner that the proposal for an out of the court settlement between the parties as proposed by the opposite parties was accepted by the appellant petitioner.As per the said submission of the then conducting counsel of the present appellant petitioner nine months time from 11.8.2017 was allowed to vacate the tenanted premises the subject matter of the suit and the second appeal and the same was accepted by the appellant petitioner. Failure on the part of the present petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises execution process for ejectment of the present petitioner would be initiated. On the basis of the said submission of the then conducting counsel of the petitioner and in presence of the learned counsel for the opposite parties the second appeal was withdrawn. The said period of 9 months expired on 11.5.2018. Prior to the said expiry, IA(C) 1633/2018 in the RSA 145/2017 (D/O) was filed. The present petitioner sought for further extension of the time period which was allowed vide order dated 11.8.2017. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.3.2018 granting another three months extension w.e.f. 11.5.2018 on the condition that the petitioner shall vacate the premises on his own volition immediately after expiry of said period of extended three months. The subsequent extension period expired on 11.8.2018 and immediately thereafter, on 21.8.2018 this review petition was filed on the ground that order dated 11.8.2017 amounts to a compromise decree without there being any compromise deed signed by the parties and as such the order dated 11.8.2017 is contrary to the mandate of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC as well as decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Had the appropriate provisions of law covering the field was pointed out to the court, the order dated 11.8.2017 could not have been passed and as such, it requires to be reviewed the same being contrary to law. In addition to that it is further stated that the order dated 11.8.2017 resulted in mis- carriage of justice inasmuch as the same was contrary to the law.