DHANI RAM Vs. KHEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though this appeal stands formally admitted on certain substantial questions of law, however, the same need not be answered in view of the nature of the order, I propose to pass.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Court, however, the judgment and decree passed by it has been set aside by the learned first appellate Court only for the reasons as set out in para-23 of the judgment which reads as under:

(3.) It is not in dispute that the defendant while filing written statement had specifically set up the plea of compromise and while filing replication, the plaintiff did not even deny that no settlement or compromise has been arrived at and the only defence taken was that the suit land was not mentioned in the document. Moreover, no objection was taken at the time when the compromise came to be exhibited in the testimony of DW-1. Not only this, the plaintiff cross examined all the witnesses including the defendant on the basis of the photocopy of the compromise Ex. DW1/A. Therefore, in such circumstances, it was not open for the learned first appellate Court to have held the compromise to be inadmissible in evidence.