M/s Navayuga Engineering Company vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Appellant preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2016/5th January, 2017 passed by learned District Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 4th February, 2009/11th February, 2009 passed by learned Additional Munsiff, 1st, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 110 of 1994 was confirmed. The plaintiffs/respondents had instituted the suit for a decree of ejectment and handing over of the possession of the suit land against the defendant/appellant herein. Learned trial court decreed the suit on contest. The first appellate court also did not find any error in the judgment of learned trial court and accordingly confirmed the same.

However, when the matter was argued at length by learned counsel for the parties, counsel for the appellant proposed to take instruction whether the appellant is inclined to vacate the suit premises within the stipulated period. The matter has thereafter come before this Bench once again. In the meanwhile, the appellant has filed an undertaking through Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla, son of Late Ram Krishna Agarwal that he is the Karta of the appellant in the instant appeal and is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. He undertakes to vacate the suit land in question after the expiry of 12 months period from today. The affidavit is dated 19th July, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal can be disposed of on the basis of such undertaking as per reasonable time fixed by this Court for vacation of the suit land. It would be in the interest of both the parties that further litigation be avoided in that light. He further submits that the execution case is being prosecuted before learned court and the cost of delivery of possession has been deposited by the plaintiffs/respondents.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has obtained instruction from his client today itself. He submits that a reasonable period of 8 months would be stipulated for vacation of the suit land by the appellant, to which the respondents are agreeable.

Learned counsel for the appellant also agrees to the said proposal.

Having regard to the understanding arrived at and the undertaking, the appellant would vacate the suit land within a period of 8 months from today. This Court is satisfied that the instant appeal can be disposed of in that light instead of adjudicating the dispute on merits.

Accordingly, the judgment and decree impugned in the instant appeal stands modified in those terms. Let decree be prepared accordingly. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid term. I.A. No. 2517 of 2017 is also stands disposed of.