AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief''s:
(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordships will be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 893/94 and having examined the record and proceedings be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order (Annexure-I) dated 20.03.1998 below Exh.12 and impugned order (Annexure-J) dated 18.03.2005 below Exhibit-29 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Surat Camp at Bardoli and be pleased to hold and declare that both the applications Exhibit-11 and 12 are misconceived and not maintainable under the law and further be pleased to allow the application Exhibit-29 filed by the Petitioner.
(C) During the pendency and till final disposal of this petition, by way of interim relief, your lordships will be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order (Annexure-I) dated 20.03.1998 below Exhibit-12 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Surat Camp at Bardoli.
(D) ...
The facts in brief are that Petitioner had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 893/1994 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD) Surat at Bardoli against the Respondents praying for possession and recovery of the outstanding rent and mesne profit in respect of the property bearing No. 271 situated at Village Gangadhara, Taluka Palsana, District Surat, which was given on lease to the Respondents. Pending the suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for compromise. On 30.04.1995, both the parties arrived at amicable settlement and the Respondents agreed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the Petitioner on or before 31.07.1995 and pay outstanding amount of Rs. 85,470/- towards rent for the period between 01.04.1992 to 30.04.1995. In pursuance of the compromise arrived at between the parties, decree was drawn accordingly. However, the Respondents did not comply with the terms of compromise. Therefore, the Petitioner had preferred Execution Application No. 6/1996 before the trial Court. It is the case of the Petitioner that after the execution application, the Respondents preferred two different applications Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12 praying to set aside the compromise recorded at Lok Adalat and the decree drawn in pursuance of the compromise and also to proceed with the suit on merits. The trial Court vide order dated 20.03.1998 rejected the application Exhibit-11 and directed the parties to proceed with the matter. However, the trial Court allowed the application Exhibit-12 and stayed the execution of the decree passed in Lok Adalat. On 11.01.2001, the Petitioner preferred application Exhibit-29 for modification of the order dated 20.03.1998. The trial Court vide order dated 18.03.2005 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed below Exhibit-12 and Exhibit-29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 893/1994, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the order passed below Exhibit-12 is contrary to the order passed below Exhibit-11 inasmuch as consent decree was passed by the trial Court. From the record it transpires that the order passed by the Lok Adalat has attained finality as the same has not been challenged. Apart from that the application filed by the Respondents for restoration of the suit is also rejected. Looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that the order passed by the Lok Adalat has attained finality, the impugned orders passed below Exhibit-12 and Exhibit-29 are required to be quashed and set aside.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.1998 passed in application Exhibit-12 and order dated 18.03.2005 passed in application Exhibit-29 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.