AUGUSTIKUNJU Vs. JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.336 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Pala, challenges the judgment in C.M.A.No.2 of 2010, Sub Court, Pala, by which, the Sub Court confirmed the order passed by the trial court reviewing the judgment and decree passed in the case.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for injunction. THE respondents filed written statement. THE case was listed for trial. On that day, the counsel appearing for the defendants made an undertaking that the defendants have no intention to do any act as alleged by the plaintiff. THE court below decreed the suit recording the undertaking made by the counsel appearing for the defendants. In the judgment, the trial court stated thus: "All the defendants counsel undertaken before court that they have no intention to do any act as alleged by the plaintiff. THE suit decreed. No costs."

(3.) BY allowing the Review Petition, the maximum that is caused is that the suit will be heard on the merits. On the other hand, if the Review Petition is not allowed, the defendants would have to suffer a decree which was passed not on the merits but only on the basis of the undertaking made by the counsel. There cannot be any right for the plaintiff to get a decree on a mere undertaking by the counsel for the defendants. If it is found that the undertaking was made on a mistaken fact, the court should undo the wrong and thus render justice to the parties. The court below thought it fit to review the judgment and thus to render justice to the parties. I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below. There is no ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.