Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mange Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ved Pal (deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Anr. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 01 of 2016
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, Chandra Prakash, Advocate
The court upheld the validity of the compromise application and allowed the Second Appeal based on the parties' willingness to settle.
Headnote:
Compromise - Civil Appeal - The court allowed the Second Appeal in terms of the compromise application filed by the parties, leading to the dismissal of the original suit.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents submitted a compromise application along with their affidavits, expressing their willingness to not contest the Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Second Appeal in terms of the compromise application and supported by the affidavits of the respondents, leading to the dismissal of the original suit.
Issues: The main issue was the acceptance of the compromise application and the dismissal of the original suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the willingness of both parties to settle and not contest the Second Appeal.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed in terms of the compromise application, and the compromise application became part of the decree.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - The appellants, namely, Mange Ram and Kashmira are present in-person. Kanwar Pal, Rajbir Singh, the respondents and Krishan Pal, Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent no.2 - Bhopal are present in-person.
2. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Mange Ram and Kashmira, the appellants, are identified by Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate. Mr. Kanwar Pal, Mr. Rajbir Singh, the respondents and Mr. Krishan Pal, Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent no.2 - Bhopal, are identified by Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents submitted that both the parties have arrived at settlement, and, a compromise application along with the affidavits of the respondents have been filed. According to the Agreement (Miscellaneous Application IA No.11975 of 2022), the respondents do not want to contest the present Second Appeal.
5. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the said Application (IA No.11975 of 2022) has been filed by the appellant nos.3, 4 and 5 through Advocate.
6. Both the parties requested to decide the present Second Appeal in terms of compromise, as mentioned in the said Application (IA No.11975 of 2022) and supported by the affidavits of Kanwar Pal, respondent no.1/1, Rajbir Singh, respondent no.1/2 and Krishan Pal, Power of Attorney holder of the respondent no.2 - Bhopal.
7. The respondents further submitted that they have filed the said agreement along with their affidavits with their free will and without any pressure.
8. The present Second Appeal (No.01 of 2016), filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2013, 'Mange Ram and Others vs. Balbir and Others', by which, the said Appeal has been dismissed, which was filed against the dismissal of the Original Suit No.123 of 2001, is allowed in terms of the said Compromise Application (IA No.11975 of 2022). The said Compromise Application (IA No.11975 of 2022) will be part of the decree.
