FIRATRAM SAHU Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought challenging the validity of compromise decree passed by continuous Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No.25A/2006 on 17.03.2007.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property was jointly purchased by petitioner, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 as party. On 19.07.1983 as the petitioner and respondents were members of joint family, therefore, according to family arrangement saw mill license was obtained in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 then sold the saw mill and other articles to respondent No.1 by a sale agreement vide annexure P-4. In that sale agreement, it was mentioned that the saw mill was partitioned in favour of brother of the seller, respondent No.2. Subsequent to the sale, the licence was mutated in favour of the respondent No.1 vide annexure P5.

(3.) It is further submitted that thereafter a dispute arose between respondent No.1 and 2 for that reason a writ petition No.1087/2004 was filed before this Court which was dismissed with direction that the matter in dispute can be decided only by a jurisdictional Civil Court. Subsequent to which, respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit without impleading the petitioner as a party. Respondent No.8 had denied the prayer of the respondent No.1 on the ground that Hon'ble Supreme Court has restrained the sale purchase of saw mill and the order remained maintained before the appellate authority of the department. He has also submitted that a circular had been issued by the State Government on 03.06.1991 that because of pendency of petition no.2002/2015 in case of T.N. Godavarman Vs. Union of India, the transfer of saw mill shall be against the policy. Similar circular has been issued by the Chhattisgarh State Government.