Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PIARA SINGH versus BALWINDER SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PIARA SINGH v. BALWINDER SINGH & Ors - RSA-4775-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 151 (16 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CM No. 11963-C of 2003

in R.S.A. No. 4775 of 2003

DATE OF DECISION: January 31, 2006.

Parties Name

Piara Singh

...APPELLANT

VERSUS

Balwinder Singh and others

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. I.S. Brar,

Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Sham Lal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

JUDGMENT:

This application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. Application is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasoning given in the application, it is allowed and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A. No. 4775 of 2003.

Respondent No. 1 Balwinder Singh filed a suit claiming declaration that the sale deed dated February 14, 1977, in favour of respondent No. 1 be declared null and void. His suit was dismissed. In appeal, as per judgment under challenge, parties had entered into a compromise, wherein it was mentioned that Rs. 5,50,000/- have been paid by Balwinder Singh, respondent No. 1, to the appellant. Before this Court, counsel for the appellant states that no money was paid to the appellant and his signatures on the compromise or in the Court were obtained by playing fraud on the pretext that money would be paid afterwards. Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that appeal does not lie against a compromise decree. If any fraud, as alleged, has been committed, the appellant will be at liberty to file a separate suit to prove the same. This Court is of the view that the objection raised by counsel for respondent No. 1 is justified. It is borne out from the judgment under challenge that the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was disposed of on the basis of some compromise. So far as alleged fraud is concerned, appellant, as per law, can file a separate suit to challenge the same. No case is made out to interfere. Appeal stands disposed of.

January 31, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.