Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Jagdish Bhimaji Purohit & 1 ­ Opponents

High Court Of Gujarat|28 March, 2012
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

[1.0] Present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicant – original plaintiff (now through the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner) to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.160 of 1999 by which the learned Appellate has dismissed the said Appeal in which consent judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Bardoli in Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 1990 was challenged. [2.0] Having heard Shri Popat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing for Shri H.J. Nanavaty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents and considering the fact that the learned trial Court passed the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 1990 on the basis of the consent terms/compromise at Exh.56 which was admittedly signed by the applicant – original plaintiff, the learned Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the said Appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant is not in a position to point out how an appeal against a consent judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court which was based upon the compromise at Exh.56 was appealable. The only contention on behalf of the applicant was that consent decree passed by the learned trial Court was beyond the dispute in the main suit. It is required to be noted that parties to the suit inclusive of the original plaintiff signed the consent terms and the compromise and placed it before the Court at Exh.56 and on that the learned trial Court has passed the decree. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be appealable and even otherwise it cannot be said to be erroneous.
[3.0] Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule discharged.
(M.R. Shah, J.) menon
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Jagdish Bhimaji Purohit & 1 ­ Opponents

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
28 March, 2012
Judges
  • M R Shah
Advocates
  • Mr Rs Sanjanwala