RATTAN BAI Vs. RAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 & 3 -petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2011 (P.16) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jhajjar allowing the plaintiffs -respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw their application dated 18.12.2007 (P.1) for withdrawal of their suit and the statement dated 4.8.2010 (P.3) thereby permitting them to pursue their suit.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the plaintiffs -respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit No. RBT 124 dated 22.5.2006 for possession by way of specific performance of contract against the defendants -petitioners and proforma respondent No. 4 herein. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff -respondent Nos. 1 & 3 filed an application dated 18.12.2007 (P.1) submitting that they have compromised the matter with the defendants -petitioners and prayed that suit on their behalf may be dismissed and in this regard, the statement of Ram Dass -plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was also recorded on 4.8.2010 (P.3), which reads as under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argues that the plaintiff -respondent Nos. 1 & 3 have filed an application dated 18.12.2007 (P.1) supported by way of affidavit (P.2) of Jawahar -plaintiff/respondent No. 3 after getting the matter compromised with the defendants -petitioners and thereafter plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Ram Dass got his statement recorded on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 3 on 4.8.2010 (P.3) before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). It is further argued that the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 while appearing as DW6 on 11.8.2010 (P.5) stated on oath that he had produced his affidavit (Ex. DW6/A) bearing his signatures and the same be read in evidence. Even, the defendants -petitioners had also filed an application dated 28.10.2010 (P.6) praying for dismissal of the suit qua plaintiff Nos. 1 & 3 and the notice of which was issued to the plaintiffs for 9.11.2010 for reply and consideration but no reply was filed. Thereafter, plaintiff Nos. 1 & 3 filed their separate applications dated 16.9.2010 (P.7 & P.9) for withdrawal of application dated 18.12.2007 as well as statement dated 4.8.2010 but the present petitioners seriously opposed the same by filing two separate replies by specifically denying the allegations that Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate was duly appointed by plaintiff No. 3 and he has duly sworn his affidavit and as such they cannot be allowed to withdraw the applications dated 18.12.2007 and statement dated 4.8.2010 by engaging another counsel Sh. M.S. Gulia, Advocate. It is also argued that the learned trial Court has grossly erred while permitting the plaintiff to withdraw their application dated 18.12.2007 as well as statement dated 4.8.2010 thereby causing great prejudice to the petitioners.