Advocates:
['ADITYA MATHUR', 'R K DAGA', '', 'C P SHARMA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 572/2012

Ram Kishore Meharwal S/o Shri Narain, aged about 60 years, r/o

House No.395-A, Gayatri Nagar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura,

Jaipur

----Appellant/Defendant

Versus

Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhagirath Prasad Sharma, aged

about 41 years, r/o Housing No.47, Aayuvan Singh Nagar,

Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur

----Respondent/Plaintiff

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Aditya Mathur

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. C.P. Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

07/03/2022

This first appeal was filed by the appellant-defendant against

the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2012 passed by Additional

District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil suit

No.90/2007 whereby and whereunder the civil suit for specific

performance filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed and the

appellant-defendant was directed to execute the sale deed

pursuant to the agreement to sale dated 02.09.2005 for the

property other than mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.02.2006.

During pendency of appeal, both parties have entered into a

compromise on the following terms:-

“i) That the Respondent Manoj Kumar has executed a

registered sale deed dated 25.02.2022 in favour of

the appellant/Ram Kishore Meharwal in respect of

Land/plot measuring 103.12 Sq.Mt. And absment

(2 of 3)

[CFA-572/2012]

constructed area 162.52 Sq.Mt. which was appellant

sold to respondent through sale deed dated

18.02.2006.

ii) That now as such the aforesaid registry has been

executed hence the appellant does not want to press

the appeal as the compromise has taken place in

respect of the Disputed plot and agreement.

iii)

That both the parties agrees that now no dispute

remains between them and the judgment and decree

dated 13.07.2012 passed by the court stands

modified in terms of the compromise.

iv)

That both the parties agree that now the dispute

between the parties has been mutually resolved to the

extent that the agreement dated 02.09.2005 on the

basis of suit for specific performance of contract

instituted by plantiff respondent now stands cancelled

and in consequence to that judgment and decree

dated 13.07.2012 stands automatically becomes

inexecutable. As such on account of compromise

taken place between the parties. The judgment and

decree dated 13.07.2012 be deemed to be settled

between the parties and defendant/appellant in the

spirit of lok adalat withdraw the appeal as not

pressed.

v)

That parties shall bear their own cost.“

The aforesaid terms of compromise have been duly signed

by both parties incorporated in the application (I.A. NO.2/2022)

filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, which is duly supported by the

respective affidavits of both parties.

Learned counsel for respective parties has verified the

signatures of both parties, who are present in person.

As per terms of compromise, the impugned judgment and

decree dated 13.07.2012 does not sustain as in lieu of specific

performance of the agreement dated 02.09.2005, the appellant

(3 of 3)

[CFA-572/2012]

has sold his other properties to the respondent as mentioned

hereinabove.

Learned counsel for both parties submits that the impugned

decree be quashed/modified in terms of the compromise.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated

13.07.2012 is set aside in terms of the compromise and the first

appeal stands disposed of in terms of compromise.

Another application (I.A. No.1/2022) has been filed by

respondent-plaintiff seeking return of his original title deeds i.e.

registered sale deed dated 18.02.2006 alongwith site map. It has

been submitted that the original title deeds were produced in

evidence before the trial court as (Exhibit-2) and (Exhibit-2/1)

since the suit has finally been decided the first appeal has also

been disposed