PREETINDER SINGH Vs. GURSHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred with respect to the order dated 2nd July, 2009 of the Addl. District Judge dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner herein for setting aside of a compromise decree dated 9th April, 2007. Notice of the petition was issued on the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Addl. District Judge could not have dismissed the application without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. Subsequently, vide order dated 9th September, 2009 which continues to be in force, the execution of the compromise decree was stayed.

(2.) The petitioner is the son of the respondent. The respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner averring that she was the sole and absolute owner and in possession of House No. B-1/3A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and had, because of relationship, allowed her son i.e. the petitioner to reside in a portion of the ground floor of the said house as a licensee; the respondent herself was also residing in the said house; that the petitioner had got married on 7th May, 2007 and thereafter the petitioner and his wife had started ill-treating the respondent; that in the circumstances, the respondent had terminated the license of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to remove himself from the portion in his use/occupation but the petitioner had failed to do so. The respondent thus in the suit sought the relief of eviction and vacant possession of the portion of the house in occupation of the petitioner.

(3.) Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued to the petitioner. The parties along with their respective advocates appeared before the suit court and moved a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The petitioner admitted the ownership of the respondent of the property and agreed to vacate and handover vacant peaceful physical possession of the premises to the respondent within six months. The compromise application also contains an undertaking of the petitioner to vacate and handover possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 31st October, 2007. It was also provided that upon failure of the petitioner to so vacate the premises the respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree and the petitioner would then also be liable for mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. 8th February, 2007 and till the date of vacation of the premises; however if the petitioner was to vacate the premises as undertaken by him on or before 31st October, 2007 he was to be not liable for any damages/mesne profits.