DURGA Vs. MUSI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2015, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar to the extent of allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC filed by the respondent-applicant-defendant and transposing her as the appellant from being a proforma respondent following the compromise in the appeal between the appellant-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff in whose favour his suit for specific performance had been decreed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that father of the respondent No.1-applicant one Nanagram @ Nanga executed an agreement to sell dated 29.11.1977 in favour of one Chetram, now dead and represented through his son and LR one Durga, the petitioner before this Court. Despite readiness and willingness of Chetram to get the sale-deed registered in pursuance to the agreement to sell dated 29.11.1977, Nanagram @ Nanga failed to execute the sale-deed in respect of land under the agreement and have it registered. Chetram in the circumstances filed a suit for specific performance before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bansoor, District Alwar on 06.12.1980. The said suit was decreed on 05.03.1998. It is relevant to state that during the pendency of the suit, Nanagram @ Nanga had expired on 31.08.1992 and his daughter the respondent No.1 now before this court was taken on record as his legal heir. The respondent No.1 did not, despite being impleaded as a defendant in Chetram's suit, contest it and hence was made ex-parte on 08.12.1993.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.03.1998, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bansoor, District Alwar, the contesting party before the trial court one Phuliya claiming that Nanagram had executed registered gift-deeds in his favour on 30.01.1978 and 31.01.1978 which was wrongly overlooked by the trial court, filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar. However on 17.10.2014, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was moved by the appellant Phulia before the Additional District Judge, Bansoor District Alwar stating that the matter had been compromised between him and LR of Chetram (who had in the meantime expired), now the petitioner before this Court and other 16 respondents and the appeal be accordingly disposed of.