PARMESHWAR GIRI Vs. SURESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition is order dated 9th October 2013, passed by learned City Munsiff, Srinagar (for brevity "Trial Court") on a suit titled Parmeshwar Giri v. Suresh Sharma , with further prayer to decree petitioner's suit, filed by him before the Trial Court, in terms of compromise arrived at between parties.

(2.) The case set up by petitioner is that he is Mahant of Abi Guzzar Mandir and President of Swami Dev Giri Trust Abi Guzzar Mandir, Srinagar. He states to be Chella of his Guru Baba Ishwaranand Giri, who passed away on 4th October 2009 and prior to his death he handed over the charge of Mahantship to petitioner and to that extent he executed modified Deed of Trust in September 2006, which was registered by Sub Registrar, Srinagar. Respondent is stated to have been employed by the Trust to look after garden of temple on monthly remuneration of Rs. 2000/- and he was also taking care of the cow and responsible for cleaning the premises, for which he was being given due monthly salary. Petitioner avers that respondent was trying to gain confidence of deceased Mahant and took undue benefit of his old age and by coercion and undue influence respondent has obtained a fraudulent document from Mahant. In the year 2009, according to petitioner, respondent started interference in the affairs of Temple and in league with tenants tried to throw petitioner out from the Temple and respondent, in order to grab property of the Temple, in connivance with tenants, tried to stop petitioner from performing the Puja in the Temple. Though he was made to desist but he did not, forcing petitioner to file a Suit for Permanent Injunction. Learned Trial Court is said to have passed an order on 20th October 2009, directing maintaining of status quo with regard to subject matter of the suit. Respondent is averred to have filed written statement on 9th November 2009. To rebut the assertions made in written statement, petitioner claims to have made an application for placing on record rejoinder affidavit and meanwhile due to mediation of respectable persons of the community, parties entered into compromise. Respondent made application for preponing the suit before Trial Court, mentioning therein that parties entered into compromise and not interested to litigate the matter further, which was entertained as petitioner did not object it. Petitioner's assertion is that on 17th September 2012, he had been present in person and respondents along-with his counsel was also present before Trial Court and joint application was presented by both parties for placing on record compromise and disposing of the suit in terms thereof. It is contended that in view of joint application as well as compromise deed, learned Trial Court was required to dispose of the matter in light of compromise arrived at between parties and record satisfaction in terms of Order 23, Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure and pass decree in accordance therewith. But learned Trial Court is stated to have directed listing of the case.

(3.) Further case of petitioner is that since respondent entered into compromise with petitioner and it is respondent who moved application for early hearing before Trial Court and thereafter joint application for disposing of the suit in light of compromise, but respondent filed an application for not entertaining the compromise before Trial Court, in which respondent had submitted that there was some confusion with regard to the stamp papers and their numbers even though the said fact was not correct and also owing to the fact that compromise deed was presented before the learned Trial Court by counsel for respondent. It is also contended that compromise was firstly drafted by counsel for respondent and thereafter he made certain corrections in the said deed and after obtaining signatures from petitioner and counsel for respondent along with petitioner, submitted it before learned Trial Court on 17th September 2012, which fact is borne from the record of learned Trial Court. It is averred that compromise arrived at between parties was already acted upon and respondent was bound by terms and condition of agreement, but he tried to resile from compromise and petitioner, accordingly, submitted is objections to the application filed by respondent, wherein petitioner clearly mentioned that compromise had been drafted by counsel for respondent and also no proof with regard to numbering of stamp papers had been placed on record. In view of provisions of Order 23, Rule 23 CPC, learned Trial Court, according to petitioner, was supposed to reject respondent's application but learned Trial Court without putting respondent to strict proof, did not provide opportunity to petitioner to prove his contentions. Learned Trial Court is said to have allowed respondent's application vide order dated 9th October 2013. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and exhorts quashment thereof.