URI CIVIL CONTRACTOR AB Vs. PAMPA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) URI Civil Contractor AB, defendant / Petitioner ( hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, for the sake of convenience) through the present revision petition have taken exception to an order dated July 14,1992 passed by Shri Tej Singh kashyap. Sub Judge, Delhi, wherethrough he came to the conclusion that an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable to set aside the judgment and decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud and fixed a date for framing of issues in order to examine the factum of fraud and stayed the operation of the said judgment and decree and directed the parties to maintain the status quo in regard to the custody of the five vehicles.

(2.) The matrix of the case of the petitioner is: that the plaintiff/ respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) : brought forward a suit, being Suit No. 7 of 1992, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner. She prayed through the said suit that the petitioner be restrained from removing 23 vehicles from the workshop of the respondent till they made the payment for the work done by her in connection with the fabrication of the bodies of the said vehicles and till the realisation of the parking charges. The respondent alongwith the said suit also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 for ad interim injunction. Vide order dated December 31,1991 the learned Additional District Judge directed the petitioner to maintain the status quo with regard to the vehicles in their possession till the next date.

(3.) While the proceedings were going on before the learned lower court, the parties settled the matter amicably on the terms and conditions enumerated in the compromise deed ( Ex.CI) dated March 25,199-2. The court below whereupon decided the suit in terms of the said compromise through his judgment and order dated March 25,1992. Parties were left to bear their own costs.