RAJ KUMAR SAH Vs. MAHENDRA PRASAD SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision at the instance of the judgment- debtors is directed against the order, dated the 21st April, 1988, passed by the IInd Munsif Bhagalpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1988, Shorn of all details the relevant facts are these. The decree-holders opposite party filed a suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the suit premises bearing Holding No 63, Ward No. 13 under the Bhagalpur Municipality. The matter went up to the Supreme Court of India, which granted three months' time to the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Thereafter, the decree-holders opposite party Ist set levied execution register as Execution Case No. 12 of 1987 for recovery of possession of the suit premises. On the 4th April, 1988 the petitioners tiled an application stating, inter alia, that after the dis- posal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court, the petitioners and the opposite party decree-holders compromised the dispute on the 12th February, 1988 on the request of the petitioners and on the intervention of the respectable persons of the locality closely related to the parties on certain terms and conditions It was stated that as per the terms of agreement or compromise, the oetitioners paid a sum of Rs. 9,900/- to the opposite party for making construction on the first floor of the suit premises and the vacant possession of the first floor was handed over to the opposite party and the amount so paid was to be adjusted in future rent since the months of February, 1988, tor the ground floor, which would remain under the tenancy of the petitioners at the enhanced rate from Rs 205/- to Rs. 275/- per month. It was further alleged that the rent for the months of December, 1987, and January 1988, were paid to the opposite party and the rent receipts were granted in printed form in token there of. As the story further goes on, in view of the terms of compromise, the petitioners and the opposite party agreed to file a joint compromise petition on the 22nd april, 1988 the date fixed in the execution case. Despite repeated requests by the petitioners the opposite party were evading to grant rent receipts, which created suspicion in the mind of the, petitioners and, as such, they sent a lawyer's notice to the opposite party on the 2nd March, 1988, and on receipt thereof, the opposite party sent a reply through their Advocate on the 7th March, 1988. A copy of the lawyer's notice sent on behalf of the petitioners has been annexed to this application marked as Annexure-1 and the reply there to purported to be sent by opposite party through their Advocate has been annexed to this application marked as Annexure-2. It is further stated that from the reply, Annexure-2, it would appear that the disputes and difference between the parties have been compromised and even inspite of the aforesaid facts, the opposite party filed, an application on the 14th March, 1988 to effect delivery of possession.

(2.) The opposite party in their rejoinder to the application for according the compromise or adjustment repudiated and denied ail the allegations made by the petitioners with regard to any such compromise or adjustment of the decree. This led to a miscellaneous case, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of the 1988, as aforementioned.

(3.) The Court below by the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) in limine holding that there was no document to prove any such adjustment or compromise.