ARCHANA SABHARWAL Vs. BAL MUKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present two first appeals have been filed by the defendants � appellants against a compromise decree dated 25.08.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road, district Sirohi in Civil Suit No.52/96 (34/95) � Bal Mukund s/o Shri Chiranji Lal Agrawal vs. Smt. Archana Sabharwal & Shri Rakesh Sabharwal. The facts giving rise to the present two appeals in brief are as under :

(2.) DURING the pendency of the said suit, the parties entered into a compromise and an application was filed by the parties before the court below on 25.01.1996 in which the defendants admitted the claims made by the plaintiff that there was a default of more than six months in payment of rent and that there was nuisance caused by the defendants and the change of use was there and also that the plaintiff needed the suit premises for bonafide need and against the arrears of rent up to the period dated 31.01.1996, the parties agreed that a sum of Rs.6,11,879/- was due to be paid to the plaintiff Bal Mukund, against which a Cheque of Rs.40,000/- drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Abu Road Branch namely Cheque No.0050322 dated 30.01.1996 was given by defendant Rakesh Sabharwal to the plaintiff and the remaining sum of Rs.5,71,879/- was agreed to be paid in monthly installments and the first installment of Rs.15,000/- was to be paid on 20.02.1996. The possession of the suit premises namely, the Cinema Hall is said to have been handed over to the plaintiff on 01.02.1996 itself. However, the said cheque of Rs.40,000/- of Rakesh Sabharwal is said to have been dishonoured by the bank.

(3.) ON 24.02.1996, the defendant No.2 Shri Rakesh Sabharwal, however, filed an application before the Court below stating therein that the said compromise is not acceptable to the defendant No.2 and, therefore, money decree for arrears of rent to the aforesaid agreed extent may not be passed in the suit. The defendant No.1 Smt. Archana Sabharwal also filed an application on 24.02.1996 signed by the same Advocate Shri Amrit Lal Shah that she had not entered into any compromise and was not bound by the application / compromise dated 25.01.1996. The plaintiff Bal Mukund filed a reply to the said application and refuted these contentions and submitted before the court below that the compromise was signed by Shri Rakesh Sabharwal on behalf of both the defendants in his personal capacity as well as Power of Attorney of Smt. Archana Sabharwal and, therefore, both the defendants were equally bound by the said compromise.