PURUSHOTTAM PANDURANG NIPANE Vs. TARACHAND PURUSHOTTAM NIPANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL defendant No.2, presently defendant No.1 - Purushottam Nipane has filed this revision challenging therein a common order passed on Exhibits 28, 30, and 35. Exhibit 28 is a compromise application, while Exhibit 30 is an objection raised to the same by non-applicant No.1/plaintiff, and Exhibit 35 is an amendment application again by the plaintiff. By the instant common order, the trial Court has deferred the enquiry into the compromise in Exhibit 28 pursuant to the objection (Exhibit 30) raised by the plaintiff, alongwith the final hearing of the suit, while Exhibit 35 stands allowed and the plaintiff has been allowed to amend his stand. Few facts will be necessary.

(2.) A Civil Suit came to be filed, being Civil Suit No.1329 of 1990 for permanent injunction and damages. In this civil suit, the trial Court passed an order of status quo on the temporary injunction application on 18.6.1990. However, the said status quo order was vacated on 1.8.1990. The order vacating the status quo was, therefore, appealed against by the plaintiff. The suit kept on pending and in this suit, defendants filed their written-statement at Exhibit 20. The original defendant, mother of the plaintiff, was deleted, and the present defendant No.2 was re-numbered as defendant No.1, while present non-applicant No.2 Prashant Manoharrao Samarth was added as a new defendant No.2. While the record was pending in the appellate Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal against the order vacating status quo, the parties filed compromise pursis in the trial Court vide Exhibit 28 on 23.4.1993. In the absence of the record, the said compromise was neither read nor recorded by the trial Court and the case was adjourned for awaiting the record; and when the record came, the original plaintiff present non-applicant No.1 filed an application Exhibit 30 to cancel the compromise (Exhibit 28). He objected to the same on the ground that he was never a party to the compromise. This application was replied by the defendant No.1 vide Exhibit 33. Therefore, on 7.9.1993, the plaintiff filed an application (Exhibit 35) for amendment of the plaint. Ultimately, Exhibits 28, 30 and 35 came to be heard and decided and as has already been stated earlier, the trial Court held that Exhibit 28 could not be read and recorded, that the objection (Exhibit 30) was just and proper, but the parties were at liberty to adduce evidence about the validity of the compromise petition (Exhibit 28) at the time of final hearing and necessary issues in that respect would be framed in due course. Exhibit 35, which was an amendment application, the same stood allowed. It is this common order which has been challenged by the present applicant original defendant No.1.

(3.) SHRI Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, on the other hand, supported the order. According to SHRI Daga, the course adopted by the trial Court was perfectly justified.