SUDERSHANA KUMARI BLAGAN Vs. TULSAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 19063/2014 (U/o 23 Rule 3 CPC for recalling of the order dated 18.2.2014) in RSA No. 171/2011.

(2.) THERE are certain sections of litigants for whom a legal binding compromise agreement entered into before the Court, is not a deterrence for seeking to recall the consent order/agreement by saying in almost a blase manner that convenience supported by dishonesty is very much a general thing in this kalyug. The present application which has been filed is symptomatic of these types of litigants. I am using very strong words and deliberately so, and which are intended to send a strong message that courts of law have to be accessed for the purpose of justice and where there is if not a strong case at least some reasonable case, but access to justice does not mean entitlement to indulge in gross abuse of the process of the law. Before reproducing the consent order, disposing of as many as five Regular Second Appeals (RSAs) filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and which brought to an end litigation of three decades, it is required to be noted that the consent order dated 18.2.2014 recording the agreement between the parties was passed after the counsels were heard on merits in the RSAs. In fact, the earlier order dated 29.1.2014 specifically records that the case was adjourned at the joint request of the parties, who wanted to consider settlement out of court. The consent order recording the agreement between the parties dated 18.2.2014 is a long order but I have no option but to reproduce the same in its entirety and the same is therefore reproduced as under: -

(3.) ALL pending applications including any contempt petition will stand disposed of as not pressed and will stand merged in terms of the present compromise order.