AMRITLAL Vs. KUMHAR PANCH MAILI NYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order Dt. 18.09.2014 passed by District Judge, Sirohi, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXIII, Rule 3 CPC has been rejected. An application was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, alleging that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal was decided on 17.11.2007 based on a compromise while giving undertaking to vacate the premises by 16.11.2009; it was submitted that the counsel was not authorized to enter into the compromise and they never gave any consent for such compromise and, therefore, the decree Dt. 17 -11.2007 be set aside.

(2.) THE District Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3 CPC does not envisage setting aside of order as against the order passed on 17.11.2007 a writ, petition was filed, which was rejected and, therefore, the application was not maintainable.

(3.) ON being directed, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the orders Dt. 01.02.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9823/2008 (Amritlal v. Rent Tribunal, Sirohi & Ors.) and Dt. 27.05.2013 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 235/2013 (Amrit Lal v. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sirohi & Ors.).