GANESH PATEL Vs. UMAKANT RAJORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find any good ground or reason to interfere with the impugned order. In fact, we must observe that the petitioner has concealed in the petition for special leave to appeal that the alleged compromise deed dtd. 18/4/2016 has been disputed and denied by the respondent.

(2.) The compromise deed was also relied upon by the petitioner before the High Court in CRR NO. 3100/ 2015, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 18/2/2016. This order specifically records that on two previous dates, viz., 7/12/2015 and 14/1/2016, the appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court, but he had not done so.

(3.) The order dtd. 18/2/2016 was challenged before this court in Crl.M.P. No. 20184 of 2016, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 25/4/2017, as the appellant had not complied with the direction to surrender and file proof within four weeks. The prayer for exemption from surrendering was rejected.