LAWS(PVC)-1943-9-66

BANKO DAS Vs. ODDI ARJUN SUBUDHI

Decided On September 17, 1943
BANKO DAS Appellant
V/S
ODDI ARJUN SUBUDHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1941, arises out of an order of the learned Munsif of Berhampore, made under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C., recording an adjustment of a decree. The decree in question was passed on compromise in a mortgage suit on 31 July 1930. Under the terms of that decree, the mortgagee, who is the appellant here, was to remain in possession of certain property until he was paid a sum of Rs. 950. This sum was to be paid in two instalments in the course of 1340 fasli. The decree provided that, if payment was not made on the dates stipulated, the amount was to carry interest. The judgment-debtors under the decree made no payments, but, soon after the expiration of 1340 fasli, attempted to take possession of the land. The decree-holder then instituted a suit asking for an injunction to restrain them from doing so, and this suit was decreed. This was in 1936.

(2.) Some two or three years later, the judgment-debtors, according to the decree-holder, again attempted to oust him, and he, therefore, applied to the Court, asking that they should be committed to prison and that he should be awarded compensation for certain crops which they had taken away. Notice was issued on the judgment-debtors, and the two applications were set down for hearing on 16 December 1939. On that date, an application was made for an adjournment, and the cases were adjourned for one week.

(3.) The learned Munsif then recorded evidence, but reserved judgment. Before judgment was delivered, a petition was put in by the judgment-debtors, asserting that a compromise had been entered into between the decree-holder and themselves, and asking that this compromise should be recorded. The learned Munsif eventually made such an order, and dismissed the applications asking that the judgment-debtors should be committed to prison and should be compelled to pay damages to the decree-holder for having removed certain crops of his. Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 arise out of the orders dismissing these applications.