GANGADEEP PRATISTHAN PVT LTD Vs. MECHANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for condonation of delay in filing additional documents is allowed.

(2.) In this appeal by special leave the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of 16th August, 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta allowing the appeal of Respondent No.1 herein and setting aside the consent decree passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court dated 12-1-1998. We may briefly refer to the facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal : The Respondent No.1 herein was running a factory in a part of the premises in question measuring about 1040 sq. ft. He claimed to be a monthly tenant of the aforesaid premises paying a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The aforesaid respondent filed a suit for injunction before the second Munsif, Alipore Court to restrain his landlord from making any construction on the premises in question. The suit was ultimately transferred to the High Court of Calcutta and was registered as E.O. Suit No.11 of 1996. The landlord disputed the tenancy claimed by the respondent herein and in the written statement a counter-claim was made for recovery of possession from him. The appellant herein purchased the premises from the former landlord of Respondent No.1. It is the case of the appellant that he entered into a compromise with the contesting respondent under which Respondent No.1 agreed to vacate the premises subject to fulfilment of certain terms and conditions which included payment of Rs. 7.50 lacs to him. The case of the appellant is that the consent terms were drawn up on 29-12-1997 which was signed by the parties including Respondent No.1 on the basis of which a prayer was made for passing a consent decree. The consent decree was passed on 12-1-1998. According to the appellant the Respondent No.1 vacated the premises in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.

(3.) On 11th February, 1998 Respondent No.1 herein filed an application before the learned single Judge who had passed the decree praying for recalling of the order decreeing the suit on the basis of the consent terms, alleging that the consent of Respondent No.1 had been obtained under duress and coercion. The consent allegedly given by Respondent No.1 was, therefore, vitiated and the decree also stood vitiated by such reason. Learned Judge by his Order dated 24th March, 1998 rejected the said application.