Back
SANJAY DHAR
Balbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the appellate court), whereby civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 09.07.2013 passed by learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) has been dismissed.
2. It appears that a civil suit was filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents, namely, Sh. Maya Ram Sharma before the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. In the said suit, Late Maya Ram Sharma had sought a declaration to the effect that he is the legal owner of the land measuring 55 kanals falling in khasra Nos. 129, 131, 132, 111, 112, 113 and 114 situated at Village Dhoun Chak and land measuring 9 kanals and 11 marlas falling in khasra Nos. 590 situated at Village, Dohal, Tehsil Akhnoor. A further declaration was also sought that agreement dated 05.06.1999 executed between Maya Ram Sharma and petitioners herein, who happen to be the defendants in the said suit, is unenforceable conferring no right, title or interest upon the defendants. A permanent prohibitory injunction restrainin
The principle of approbation and reprobation, reasonableness of parties' conduct, and the applicability of Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC were central to the judgment.
(1) Compromise of suit – For a valid compromise in a suit there has to be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by parties which would then require it to be proved to satisfaction of....
The main legal point established is that the continuation of a suit can be considered an abuse of process of law if there is a compromise decree from a previous suit involving the same parties.
A suit where a decree based on compromise is not challenged, but compromise itself is called into question, would also be barred by provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the decree determines the applicable provisions for execution, and in this case, the decree for declaration and injunction shoul....
A suit challenging a compromise decree not challenged, but the compromise itself is called into question, would be barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Additionally, a third party,....
A compromise decree is binding on the parties to the suit and not on strangers, and a separate suit to challenge the compromise decree is not maintainable for strangers to the proceeding.
Second appeals in Punjab and Haryana are treated under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, emphasizing composite appeals for maintaining substantive justice rather than getting dismissed on te....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
