JIWAN LAL SHARMA Vs. KASHMIR SINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is instituted against the order dated 28.12.2013, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 218-1 of 2010.

(2.) Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff ) has filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly occupying and raising construction work over the best portion of three storey building as detailed in the plaint. The defendant filed the written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also moved an application for grant of ad-interim injunction. The trial Court vide order dated 5.5.2011, directed the parties to maintain status quo. The defendant challenged the order dated 5.5.2011 before the learned District Judge, Shimla. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 18.8.2012. The trial Court during the pendency of the Civil Suit, under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules framed by this Court, with the consent of the parties, referred the matter to the Mediator for resolving the dispute between the parties. Sh. Pawan Thakur, Advocate, was appointed as Mediator vide order dated 4.1.2011. The Deed of Settlement was prepared on 11.1.2011. The parties signed the Deed of Settlement (Annexure P-4). The Mediator submitted the report dated 12.1.2011 to the learned trial Court. The defendant filed objections to the settlement vide Annexure P-6 dated 21.2.2011. The plaintiff filed reply to the objections vide Annexure P-7 dated 3.5.2011. The trial Court passed the order dated 28.12.2013. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Shimla, came to the conclusion that the compromise arrived at between the parties through mediation was not binding upon the parties and the objections were also not maintainable. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Shimla, listed the matter for framing of issues on 4.3.2014. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 28.12.2013.

(3.) I have heard the learned Senior Advocates for the parties and gone through the pleadings and impugned order carefully.