AMINA BEGUM Vs. MOHD RAMZAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order dated 6-5-2004 passed by the learned Additional Dtst. Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur by which application dated 25-9-2003 by which a prayer was made by the plaintiff-petitioner for withdrawing the suit on the basis of compromise dated 25-9-2003 was rejected. 2, It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants on 1-6-1998 with a prayer that they be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff- petitioner over the property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. (ii) That the suit was contested by the defendant-respondents by filing written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were also framed. (iii) That the case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that during pendency of the suit, the defendants-respondents executed an agreement for sale of property in dispute on 2- 12-2002 in favour of Sahabuddin and the respondents-defendants further executed a power of attorney dated 2-12-2002 in favour of Sahabuddin In whose favour the agreement dated 2-12-2002 for sale was executed. It was further stated by the plaintiff-petitioner that by the power of attorney dated 2-12-2002, the defendants-respondents further authorised Sahabuddin to take steps on behalf of the defendants-respondents in all proceedings pending in the Court. (iv) During pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 25-9-2003 In the abovementioned suit for withdrawing the suit on the basis of the compromise dated 25-9-2003 which was also annexed with the application dated 25- 9-2003 and that application was signed by the plaintiff-petitioner and by Sahabuddin on behalf of the respondents-defendants who was power of attorney-holder of defendants-respondents. (v) The application dated 25-9-2003 of the plaintiff-petitioner was contested by the defendants-respondents by filing separate reply on 14-10-2003 stating that the respondents-defendants had not appointed Sahabuddin as their general power of attorney-holder nor had given any power to make compromise on their behalf and the special power of attorney which was executed by them in favour of Sahabuddin was orally cancelled on 3-12-2002 in presence of respectable persons and hence he had no right or interest to take steps on their behalf in the present suit and further the so-called compromise is nothing but a forged document and thus application for withdrawal be dismissed. (vi) After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court through impugned order dated 6-5-2004 rejected that application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for withdrawal of the suit inter alia holding that since the plaintiff-petitioner had filed the suit in the year 1998 and statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner and the respondents-defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff- petitioner, thus, the plaintiff-petitioner could not force the defendants-respondents to make compromise without their consent and stnce there was no consent on behalf of the defendants-respondents for the so-called pro-forma of compromise dated 25-9-2003, therefore. the same could not be attested by the Court.

(2.) Aggrieved from the order dated 6-5- 2003, this civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

(3.) In this case, the main case of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is that the defendants-respondents had not denied execution of agreement for sale in favour of Sahabuddin dated 2-12-2002 nor they had denied receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the property in dispute. Further they had admitted the execution of power of attorney dated 2-12-2002 in favour of Sahabuddin and the same has been produced and a recital of the power of attorney dated 2-12- 2002 executed by the defendants-respondents in favour of Sahabuddin reveals that Sahabuddin was given that power of attorney to do anything in the cases pending against the defendants-respondents and thus, if Sahabuddin in capacity as power of attorney-holder of defendants-respondents had entered into compromise on 25-9-2003 and on the basis of that compromise if the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to withdraw the suit, the permission should have been granted and hence, the impugned order in question is basically Illegal and without jurisdiction and should be set aside.