TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA Vs. UPASANA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra, the Executive Secretary, Children Academy, Jaipur has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 21 7.1994 passed by Shri O.P. Gupta, R.H.J.S, Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur by which order the order of the Trial Court dated 8.4.1994 has been set-aside.

(2.) The Trial Court vide order dated 8.4.1994 had ordered that in regard to the property in question, alleged compromise between the parties dated 20.11.1993 had been presented in the Court and to verify the compromise, the Trial Court had ordered the parties to be present in the Court in person. This part of the order that the parties should be present in person to verify the contents of the compromise which had been presented only by the Advocates was challenged by the plaintiff -respondent by filing an appeal, the appeal was dismissed. It was ordered by the Court that in the circumstances the Trial Court was competent to procure the presence of the parties in person. Despite such an order the parties did not appear before the Court and. therefore, a notice was issued to the respondent- defendant, now the petitioner to be present in the Court and to say as to why the suit should not be decreed as per compromise. This order was challenged by the plaintiff, now the respondent, before the Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court vide order dated 21.7.1994 had observed that on 20.11 1993, a written agreement had been produced in the Court by the Counsel for the parties wherein it was averred that the present petitioner, the defendant accepts the bona fide need of the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the Court was bound to pass a decree in accordance with the compromise. After noticing certain authorities the lower Appellate Court had observed that there was hardly any necessity to procure the presence of the parties in person before passing of the decree and, therefore, the order dated 8.4.1994 passed by the Trial Court was modified by accepting the appeal. A direction was given by the lower Appellate Court to the Trial Court to pass a decree within seven days in accordance with the alleged agreement entered into between the parties.

(3.) The facts in the case as stated are that the petitioner is a tenant of Plot No. A-29, Vidhyalaya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur which was taken on rent by the Central Academy School of which the petitioner was the Secretary. It is stated that the plaintiff-respondent is said to have purchased the said plot from the original owner and had filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner on 6.9.1991 in the competent Court at Jaipur in the name and style of Upasana Constructions v. Triyugi Narain Mishra. It is stated that the petitioner is running the school at the place. It is the case of the petitioner in the revision petition that because of his pre-occupations, he ramained out of Jaipur. It is stated that he had engaged Mr. D.P. Chaddha and B.L. Agrawal, Advocates to conduct the present case. It is stated that Ratan Thakral had also signed the Vakalatnama being associate of Mr. D.P. Chaddha, Advocate. The written statement was filed. The ground as stated for eviction was denied. The case was transferred to the Court of A.C.M. No. 6, Jaipur City where it was registered and the next date fixed was 8.10.1993 for submission of the documents and settlement of issues and the case was adjourned to 17.11.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he had contested the last gen- 1. Appeal No. 1/94, decided on 24.1.1994. eral elections which were held in the month of November from Chhillupur Assembly Constituency on BJP ticket. The polling was held on 18.11.1993 and re-polling was ordered on several booths which had taken place on 20.11.93, counting was done on 28.11.1993 and result was declared on 29.11.1993, it is stated that the petitioner had left Jaipur in the first week of October, 1993 in connection with his election and returned to Jaipur only in the first week of December 1993, after declaration of the result and, therefore, there was no question of any compromise having been submitted on 20.11.1993. Ultimately, the suit was decreed against him when he was so informed on 17.8.1994 and only then and then he came to know the facts as to how he has been deceived by the interested parties.