THE MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ORS. Vs. MAJISA CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS -defendants have preferred this appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2012, passed by learned Lok Adalat, Sirohi, as a consequence of compromise being arrived at between the rival parties. The learned Lok Adalat verified the compromise and accordingly, decree -sheet was drawn.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent -plaintiff filed a suit, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,57,631/ -, before the learned District Judge, Sirohi, against the appellants. During the pendency of the suit, the parties mutually settled their dispute and a compromise is arrived at. In terms of compromise, appellants agreed to pay part of the amount claimed by the respondent -plaintiff and submitted a written application/compromise to pay a sum of Rs. 4,03,409/ - to the respondent -plaintiff after making permissible deduction of 15.25%. In the application, it is also agreed by the appellants that the requisite amount would be paid to the respondent -plaintiff within fifteen days. The complete text of application, which was in the form of compromise, bearing the signatures of both the parties, reads as under: -

(3.) OFFICE has also pointed out defect that address of the respondent is incomplete. Despite availing many opportunities, defect No. 2 is not removed. On 05.03.2014, the Court passed an order that notice under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be issued after removal of defect No. 2. Yet again, on 21.03.2014, the same order was passed, but till date defect No. 2 has not been removed.