Advocates:
['IR CHOUDHARY', '', 'AK ANAND', 'RAJENDRA CHOUDHARY', 'VS CHOUDHARY', 'RK BOHRA', '', 'VK BHADU APPLICANT']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 23/2015

Husna

----Appellant

Versus

Abdul Shakoor

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. IR Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

For Applicants

:

Mr. SG Ojha

Mr. VK Bhadu

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

08/12/2021

This first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff,

being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014

passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar Distt.

Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.24/2013 (32/2009) whereby and

whereunder the civil suit for specific performance of contract and

injunction of appellant has been dismissed..

The counsel for the appellant submits that an agreement to

sale dated 29.01.2007 was entered into between the appellant-

and respondent. The appellant is pursuing his civil suit for specific

performance to get sale deed registered, pursuit to the agreement

to sale dated 29.01.2007.

During the pendency of this first appeal, respondent-

defendant Abdul Shakool has passed away on 16.09.2020 and the

appellant-plaintiff has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 &

(2 of 4)

[CFA-23/2015]

9 CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, to bring legal

representatives of deceased respondent Abdul Shakool on record.

The legal representative of the deceased respondent have

put in appearance through their advocated Mr. S.G. Ojha, who has

filed vakalat nama in the Registry.

Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the

legal representatives of deceased respondent on the application

under Order 22 Rule 4 (Inward No.02/21).

As far as the application under Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 CPC is

concerned, the same is not opposed by the legal representatives.

Hence, the application is allowed and the legal representatives are

taken on record.

Since the legal representatives are duly represented by

counsel, notice need not be issued.

The appellant has filed another application (Inward

No.03/2021) dated 22.11.2021 under Section 151 CPC alleging

inter alia that the legal representatives of deceased respondent

Abdul Shakool have entered into compromise with the appellant

and have agreed to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the

agreement dated 29.01.2007. The written compromise dated

22.11.2021 arrived at between the appellant and legal

representatives of deceased respondent through Manjur Ali has

been placed on record.

The counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the

respondent jointly submit that since both the parties have

mutually settled the dispute out of the Court and on the basis of

the compromise dated 22.11.2021, the respondents are ready to

execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, therefore, this

first appeal may be disposed of accordingly, in terms of

(3 of 4)

[CFA-23/2015]

compromise and the compromise dated 22.11.2021 may be taken

on record.

Thus, the application filed under Section 151 CPC to take on

record the compromise dated 22.11.2021 is allowed. If the legal

representatives of deceased respondent have entered into the

compromise dated 22.11.2021 and are ready to execute the sale

deed in favour of the appellant pursuant to sale agreement dated

29.01.2007, there is no need to pass any order by this Court in

this appeal and the appeal does not survive on merits.

Accordingly, the present first appeal stands disposed of.

In the present appeal one another application (Inward

No.01/21) has been filed by one Shri Hakam Ali under Order 1

Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as party respondent alleging inter

alia that for the suit property, defendant Abdul Shakool had

entered into agreement to sale with him on 25.04.2012. The copy

of the agreement dated 25.04.2012 is placed on record with the

application.

Heard the counsel for the applicant.

Since this Court has not considered the first appeal on merits

and the first appeal has been disposed of merely