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

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/613321
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-20-2006
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 1282 of 2005
Judge Hemant Gupta, J.
Reported in(2006)143PLR81
AppellantMange Ram
RespondentSube Singh and ors.
Appellant Advocate P.R. Yadav, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....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aggrieved the order passed by the learned trial court on 22.1.2005, whereby suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn.2.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the parties entered made a statement to withdraw the suit as compromised, but before the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn the plaintiff moved an application to decide the suit on merits. but the learned trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn in terms of the statement made in the statement dated 1.6.2004, although before the said date, the plaintiff has moved an application to withdraw the aforesaid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 since the plaintiff has withdrawn statement dated 1.6.2004.....
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aggrieved the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.1.2005, whereby suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn.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the parties entered made a statement to withdraw the suit as compromised, but before the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn the plaintiff moved an application to decide the suit on merits.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.