SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 815

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,J
NEK RAM – Appellant
Versus
MEERA – Respondent
CMPMO/74/2025



Petitioner Advocates:Lalit Kumar Sharma ,Respondent Advocate: NEMO

The trial court is functus officio after a decree based on compromise, and cannot entertain applications for restoration or injunction without proper legal grounds.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 151 and Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Dismissal of applications for restoration of suit and injunction - The trial court dismissed applications for restoration of a suit and injunction after the main case was decreed based on a compromise - The court found no merit in the petition challenging the dismissal, noting that the correct legal provisions were not cited and that the trial court had become functus officio after the decree. (Paras 4-6)

(B) Function of Trial Court - Once a case has been decreed, the trial court cannot entertain applications that seek to revive the case without proper legal grounds or prayers. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to rescind a compromise and restore a civil suit after it had been decreed, but the trial court dismissed their applications for lack of merit.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of the applications was upheld as there was no basis for restoration or injunction after the decree.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the applications for restoration and injunction after a compromise decree was already in place.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications once the suit was decreed, and the petitioners failed to cite the correct legal provisions.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgment?

of this learned court and decided on merit in the interest of justice.”

3. Along with this application, another Application No.3384 of 2025 under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed for restoring files of the suit of the learned Court and thereafter yet another application for injunction was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. All these applications came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide two orders passed on

18.01.2025, which read as under:-

Application under Section 151 CPC Heard. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for rescinding the compromise Ex.CA and for restoration of the civil suit.

During consideration on this application, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that main case has been decreed on the basis of the compromise Ex.CA and he wants to rescind the said compromise and decree by way of present application.

Since, main case filed has been disposed of, an application under Section 151 CPC cannot be proceeded with independently. As such, the same is dismissed. Be tagged with main case file.

Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC “Heard. The present application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for restraining the non-applicant from getting the mutation of the suit land in her favour on the basis of compromise decree dated 29.07.2021.

During consideration on this application, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that main case has been decreed on the basis of the compromise Ex.CA.

Since, main case filed has been disposed of, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC cannot be proceeded with independently. As such, the same is dismissed.

Be tagged with main case file.”

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the defendants/petitioners have filed the instant petition, primarily on the ground that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of the suit by simply rejecting the application as the correct provision of law was not mentioned therein.

5. I find no merit in this petition, given the fact that the specific prayer made by the applicant was for restoring the suit by rescinding the compromise (Exhibit C.A) without making a specific prayer for recalling the judgment and decree, which was passed on the basis of the compromise deed (Exhibit C.A). As regards the dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC; Once the suit had been decreed, the trial Court had become functus officio, more particularly, when even the application for revival of the suit had been dismissed.

6. In such circumstances, obviously, the learned trial Court was left with no option but to have dismissed both the applications for injunction as well as a separate application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoring the files of the suit to the learned Court.

7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

Judge March 07, 2024 (Ankit)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top