Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


MANGE RAM v. SUBE SINGH & Ors. - CR-1282-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 7 (3 January 2006)

C.R. No. 1282 of 2005. (1)


C.R. No. 1282 of 2005.

Date of Decision: 20.1.2006

Mange Ram ...Petitioner.


Sube Singh and others. .....Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents.


The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.1.2005, whereby suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 12.9.2002. In the said suit, the parties entered into compromise, whereby on 1.6.2004 the plaintiff made a statement to withdraw the suit as compromised, but before the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn, the plaintiff moved an application to decide the suit on merits. But the learned trial Court dismissed the suit as widhrawn in terms of the statement made in the dated 1.6.2004, although before the said date, the plaintiff has moved an application to withdraw the aforesaid C.R. No. 1282 of 2005. (2)

statement. Since the plaintiff has withdrawn statement dated 1.6.2004 before the decision of the suit, the learned trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit as withdrawn on 22.1.2005. The said order is thus, not sustainable in law. The plaintiff cannot be forced to withdraw the suit before the decree in terms of the said statement could be passed by the learned trial Court.

In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed.

The impugned order is set aside. The suit is restored to its original number and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. However, it shall be open to the defendant to take advantage of the compromise and the statement made by the plaintiff on 1.6.2004, if any, permissible in law.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6.3.2006 for further proceedings in accordance with law.

20.1.2006. (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


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


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 |

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