Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow restoration of suits for substantial justice without a formal application for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon (for brevity - Trial Court), against dismissal of application under section 151 CPC, filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, for restoration of the suit filed by him.

2. Petitioner Islamuddin was plaintiff and respondents Dharambir etc. were defendants before the learned Trial Court. Both the parties hereinafter shall be addressed to as per their original status in the suit.

3. The facts, as culled out from the paper-book and necessary for proper adjudication of this revision petition, are that plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 120 dated 26.07.2004 titled Islamuddin v. Dharambir Singh and another for decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.06.2003 and in the alternative, for recovery of amount of Rs. 16,20,000/- along with interest etc., with regard to the land measuring 23 kanals 17 marlas @ Rs. 5,40,000/- per acre, out of which earnest money of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid.

4. During pendency of the said suit, parties entered into compromise on 14.10.2004 and it was settled that defendants would get sale deed registered in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of compromise and plaintiff would make payment of balance sale consideration and in case, defendants failed to execute sale deed, suit of the plaintiff would be decreed on deposit of balance sale consideration before the concerned Court.

5. On the basis of statement made by counsel for the plaintiff to the effect that he did not wish to proceed with the suit in view of aforesaid compromise, vide order dated 14.10.2004, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. On 08.12.2004, the plaintiff filed application dated 07.12.2004 for restoration of the suit on the ground that the defendants refused to get the sale deed registered in spite of having received Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash on the day of compromise. On receiving notice on 26.12.2004 of the aforesaid application, defendants filed reply dated 28.03.2005, pleading therein that compromise was got effected by suppressing material facts. The defendants visited office of the concerned Sub-Registrar on 14.12.2004 for getting the sale deed executed and also moved application for getting their presence marked and payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash was not mentioned in the compromise. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff, in collusion with counsel of defendants, played fraud with the defendants and succeeded in getting the compromise effected fraudulently and malafidely. So, prayer for dismissal of restoration application was made.

7. On 24.08.2006, counsel for the plaintiff made statement before the concerned Court that he did not wish to press the application for restoration of the suit. So, vide order of even date, the said application was dismissed as not pressed. However, on the same day i.e. 24.08.2006, plaintiff filed Execution Petition dated 24.08.2006. The defendants filed objections dated 22.01.2007 to the said Execution Petition. The plaintiff filed reply dated 12.12.2007 to the objections against Execution Petition. The plaintiff also moved another application dated 28.08.2010 under Order 23, Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC, with prayer that defendants be directed to execute sale in favour of the plaintiff, in view of the said provisions. Defendants again filed reply to this application as well.

8. The learned Executing Court, vide order dated 22.04.2013, restored the main suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 120 dated 26.07.2004 titled Islamuddin v. Dharambir Singh and another to its original number and further ordered to separate the Execution Petition from the file pertaining to Civil Suit No. 120 dated 26.07.2004. Aggrieved against the said order, defendants filed review application dated 20.05.2013, which was dismissed by learned Court vi