Skip to content


Mange Ram Vs. Sube Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 1282 of 2005
Judge
Reported in(2006)143PLR81
AppellantMange Ram
RespondentSube Singh and ors.
Appellant Advocate P.R. Yadav, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments..........be dismissed as withdrawn the plaintiff moved an application to decide the suit on merits. but the learned trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn in terms of the statement made in the statement dated 1.6.2004, although before the said date, the plaintiff has moved an application to withdraw the aforesaid statement. since the plaintiff has withdrawn statement dated 1.6.2004 before the decision of the suit, the learned trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit as withdrawn on 22.1.2005. the said order is thus, not sustainable in law. the plaintiff cannot be forced to withdraw the suit before the decree in terms of the said statement could be passed by the learned trial court.3. in view of the above the present revision petition is allowed. the impugned order is set aside......
Judgment:

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.1.2005, whereby suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 12.9.2002. In the said suit, the parties entered made a statement to withdraw the suit as compromised, but before the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn the plaintiff moved an application to decide the suit on merits. But the learned trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn in terms of the statement made in the statement dated 1.6.2004, although before the said date, the plaintiff has moved an application to withdraw the aforesaid statement. Since the plaintiff has withdrawn statement dated 1.6.2004 before the decision of the suit, the learned trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit as withdrawn on 22.1.2005. The said order is thus, not sustainable in law. The plaintiff cannot be forced to withdraw the suit before the decree in terms of the said statement could be passed by the learned trial Court.

3. In view of the above the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The suit is restored to its original number and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. However, it shall be open to the defendant to take advantage of the compromise and the statement made by the plaintiff on 1.6.2004, if any, permissible in law.

4. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6.3.2006 for further proceedings in accordance with law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //