RAMRATANBHAI BADRIPRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. KANKUBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred for vacating of the interim relief, on the ground of non-maintainability of the appeal being FA No. 2733 of 2009 Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code of Civil Procedure', for short).

(2.) We have heard Mr. S.N. Shelat, ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. Vasavada for the applicants and Mr. Mihir Joshi, ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. Shastri for opponents No. 1 to 4 (original Appellants), who are the main contesting party since they are original Appellants.

(3.) In order to consider the question of maintainability, the relevant facts are that on 18.3.1993 the applicants herein - original Plaintiffs instituted the suit for specific performance of Contract before the Civil Court being Special Civil Suit No. 12/1983 (new number being 4/2002). In the said suit, two separate written compromise were submitted by certain parties to the proceedings being Exhs. 600 and 635. First compromise Exh. 600 was between Plaintiffs on one side and Defendants No. 1/1 to 1/3 and Defendant No. 2 and Defendants No. 5 to 7 on the other side. It appears that, thereafter, when the first compromise, Exh. 600 was tendered, the Court was satisfied that the parties concerned had signed the compromise and the admission of the compromise was also verified by the Court and as per the trial Court, it was required to pass the decree as per the terms of the compromise qua the parties who had agreed for compromise, but as there was no compromise of Defendants No. 8 to 15 on record, the matter remained pending. Thereafter, the remaining Defendants No. 8 to 15 submitted written objections to the compromise and, subsequently, another compromise, Exh. 635, was produced and admitted by Defendants No. 8 to 15. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed reply and resisted the decree passed on the compromise, Exhs. 600 and 635. The matter was ultimately heard by the learned Judge on the aspects as to whether the decree should be passed in terms of the compromise, Exhs. 600 and 635 or not. The trial Court also considered the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, including the objections raised to the passing of the decree based on the compromise and, ultimately, found that the decree deserves to be passed as per the compromise, Exhs. 600 and 635, and accordingly, passed the decree.