JAI GOPAL Vs. SHAM LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by Jai Gopal against Sham Lal and his three brothers out of whom Ram Dass, defendant No. 2 was a minor. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff ,was a tenant of the shop, in dispute, and that the defendants be restrained from taking forcible possession of the same. The contentions of the plaintiff were controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants. In view of the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed out of which two issues relevant for the purpose of controversy are reproduced below :

(2.) In evidence, the plaintiff had relied upon the rent deed alleged to have been executed by one Sham Sunder in favour of the plaintiff. This rent deed was held to be forged document and it was held that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession of the shop, in dispute. Consequently, both the issues were decided against him and the suit was dismissed. It was further held that Jai Gopal, plaintiff and the said Sham Sunder, P. W. 2 had intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in the Court and further that the plaintiff Jai Gopal, Sham Sunder, P. W. 2 and Rattan Lal, P.W. 3, had intentionally given false evidence in respect of the rent deed dated July 14, 1970, Exhibit P. 5. It was thus directed that those three persons should be prosecuted under section 193, Indian Penal Code (herein- after called the Code). Against that judgment and decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiff Jai Gopal filed appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1973, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, on October 24, 1975. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter is alleged to have been compromised between the parties. As one of the defendants, namely, Ram Dass, was a minor and was represented by his father Paras Ram as guardian ad !item, and application under order 23 rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, is purported to have been filed on behalf of Shri Paras Ram on October 24, 1975, for permission to enter into a compromise. The said permission was given by the appellate Court vide its order of the same date, in the following words

(3.) Chief Justice Narula (as he then was), inspected the Court of Shri K.C. Dewan, Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, who decided the above appeal on February, 24, 1976, when this case came to his notice. As the Hon'ble Chief Justice was of the opinion that the decision in the appeal was not for the benefit of the minor and further that the decision was outside the pleading of the parties and thus the appeal could not be allowed as a result of the alleged compromise, he was pleased to issue notice to the parties -under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution. It is in these circumstances that the case has been placed before me.