K S BAKSHI Vs. P M MATHRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.3.1996. The suit was initially contested by the defendant. However, parties have entered into an compromise. The compromise application has been filed. In terms of the compromise application, the plaintiff has to make payment to the defendant and defendant has to hand over physical vacant possession of the property in question to the plaintiff.

(2.) It may be noticed that one Smt. Sarla Mishra had sought impleadment in the suit as a co-owner of the property who is contending that there was no division by metes and bounds in pursuance to earlier decree for partition, thus agreement could not be arrived at in her absence. Though she was initially impleaded as a party, the order of impleadment was stayed by the Division Bench. The said Smt. Sarla Mishra filed an independent suit being CS (OS) 1370/2005 and even in the said suit while dealing with he interim application on 30th September, 2005, this Court has taken a view that the handing over of possession cannot be restrained. The orders of Division Bench have been pointed out to me which show that the Division Bench in its wisdom deemed it appropriate not to stay the proceedings in the suit and have permitted the application under Order 23 Rule 3, CPC, to be considered which would be subject to the final adjudication by Division Bench.

(3.) On a perusal of the application and in view of the aforesaid fact, in my considered view, there is no impediment to the compromise.