LexARJAN SINGH versus PUNIT AHLUWALIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B -- ---- -- 12ooarss-:-c.R:-6s4 ARJAN SINGH v. PUNIT AHLUWALIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3573 of 2008) MAY 14, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Or. 23, r.3 - Compromise of suit- Two suits for specific C performance by different plaintiffs against common defen- dant, the owner of suit property- Both the plaintiffs impleaded as defendants in respective suits - Compromise entered into is one of the suits and decree passed in terms thereof- HELD : Both the suits were required to be considered together - The D two plaintiffs had a rival claim - It was a case where first part of Order 23, r. 3 would apply-As the other plaintiff was not a party to the settlement, the same would not be binding on him - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 19 and 20 - Transfer of Prop- E erty Act, 1882 - s. 52. Specific Relief Act, 1963: \ s. 20 -Discretion as to decreeing specific performance - Two suits filed by two different plaintiffs against the common de- fendants, owner of suit property - Plaintiffs of both the suits im- F pleaded as defendants in respective suits - Compromise de- cree passed in one suit - HELD : Would not be binding on plaintiff of the other suit as by reason of the compromise his claim would not be defeated - Further, both the suits were required to be considered together - There being rival claims, Court having G regard to s. 20 of the Act could exercise its discretionary jurisdic- tion in one suit or the other- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 23, r. 3- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 52. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : H 684 ARJAN SINGH v. PUNIT AHLUWALIA 685 & ORS. s. 52 - Transfer of suit property by defendant pending suit A - Held: If order of injunction was operative to a particular date, technically the same would not remain operative thereafter and owner of land could have entered into compromise, but the sale deed pursuant thereto would be hit by doctrine of /is pendens - Doctrine of /is pendens - Specific Relief Act, 1963 B - ss. 19 and 20 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Or. 23, r.3. Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of con- tract against the owner of the suit property (the principal defendant). An ex parte inerim injunction was passed therein which was extended from time to time and last up C to 16.10.1996. An application for further extension was filed but no order was passed. Later, another suit for spe- cific performance of contract in respect of the same prop- erty was filed by one 'S' against the principal defendant. The said 'S' was also impleaded as defendant no.2 in the D suit filed by the appellant. Similarly, appellant's applica- tion for impleadment in the later suit was also allowed. A purported compromise was agreed into between the prin- cipal defendant and defendant No.2 in the subsequent suit and a consent decree was passed therein on E 19.02.2003 pursuant whereto a deed of sale was executed on 25.03.2003 in favour of respondent no.1, a nominee of 'S'. The appellant filed an application under Order 23, r.3 . ._ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to recall the order dated 19.02.03. The said application was allowed F by the trial court. However, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court. In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff of the first suit, it was contended for the appellant that the High Court failed to take into consideration that it was a case where G the first part of Order 23, r.3 would apply; and that since the court did not pass any order on the application for extension of interim order, on the principle that no party should suffer owing to fault on the part of the court, the sale deed dated 25.03.2003 must be held to be bad in law. H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. I A Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 A compromise which does not satisfy the requirements of law would be unlawful and, therefore, decree in terms thereof cannot be passed. When a com- promise is entered into, the Court has a duty to see as to 8 whether the same meets the requirements of law. It may be true that parties to the suit signed the compromise petition. But, in the instant case, indisputably, the appel- lant has a rival claim. The suit filed by him, vis-a-vis, the one filed by 'S' was required to be considered together. C The court could exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in one of the suits or the other, ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.