Court No. - 9
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 402 of 2009 Appellant :- Lakshmi Narain (Deceased) & Others Respondent :- Smt. Satyawati Devi & Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.K.Srivastava,Dinesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- N.B. Nigam,Mahesh Sharma
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
A compromise was filed in this case. The same was sent for verification. It has been returned back with the report that the compromise has been duly verified.
Since, all the parties, mentioned in the array of parties, are not signatories at the time of verification, this Court has examined the facts of the case.
It appears that one Satyawati filed two suits; one in the year 1971 and the other in 1988. Suit No. 24 of 1971 was pending before the trial court, consequent to an order of remand, passed by the appellate court. At this stage, the Suit No. 90 of 1988 was filed. Both the suits were consolidated and were decided by a common judgment. Suit No. 24 of 1971 was dismissed as was the Suit No. 90 of 1988.
Against the dismissal of both the suits, two separate appeals, being Appeal No. 35 of 2004, directed against the judgment and decree, dismissing the Suit No. 24 of 1971 and Appeal No. 34 of 2004, directed against the dismissal of Suit No. 90 of 1988, were filed. It appears that the despite dismissal of Suit No. 90 of 1971, a cross objection was also filed therein.
The first appellate court dismissed First Appeal No. 35 of 2004 as also the cross objection therein. However, the Suit No. 90 of 1988 was decreed in part.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees in both the suits as is clear from a plain reading of memo of appeal.
The compromise has been entered into between some of the parties only as noticed above.
Submission of counsel for the appellants is that this compromise pertains only with Suit No. 90 of 1988, decreed partly by the lower appellate court, in Appeal No. 34 of 2004.
This submission is not borne out by the memo of appeal as noticed above. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.
For the same reason, the compromise, in absence of necessary parties is not a valid compromise and cannot be given the same effect to or accepted.
The compromise application is, accordingly, rejected.
Despite rejection of this compromise application, is is always open to parties to file a fresh and proper compromise.
Order Date :- 1.12.2017 LN Tripathi