Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 165 (UTT)

Trilok Singh v. Sheetal Mund

2021-03-15

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The appellant in the present first appeal is a defendant in a suit being O.S. No.142 of 2018, "Smt. Sheetal Vs. Trilok Singh". In the suit, thus, instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, herein, the parties to the suit had entered into a compromise on 25.10.2018, which was duly verified, as per the provisions contained under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, and based on the said compromise, which was voluntarily entered into between the parties to the suit, consequently the suit was decided in terms of the compromise vide its judgment and decree dated 25.10.2018, which was passed in O.S. No.142 of 2018"Smt. Sheetal Vs. Trilok Singh", which is under challenged in the present appeal. 2. On the institution of the appeal before this Court on 19.08.2020, the Registry of this Court had reported that the appeal is delayed by 574 days. On the delay condonation application, notices were issued to the respondent, who has put in appearance and had filed her objections to the delay condonation application. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, as per the contentions raised in the delay condonation application, had submitted that at the time when the compromise was entered into between the parties on 25.10.2018, though it bears his signatures, but he was not in a sound mental state of mind to understand its contents, and on account of the alleged wrongful confinement made by the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, his argument is limited to the extent that the compromise was obtained by playing a fraud and thus has giving challenge to the compromise decree, in the present first appeal, at a later stage, with the delay of 574 days, would grant her the latitude to override the embargo created by sub-section (3) of Section 96 of the CPC, for the reason being that the fraud vitiates an order or a decree. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the compromise decree was as a consequence of the fraud, this Court is not acceding to it, for the reason being that if the judgment which was rendered by the court of 5th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No.142 of 2018, "Smt. Sheetal Vs. Trilok Singh", itself is taken into consideration on a compromise paper no.45A 1/1, the following findings has been recorded:- 5. Trilok Singh", itself is taken into consideration on a compromise paper no.45A 1/1, the following findings has been recorded:- 5. On the simplicitor reading of it, the following aspects emerges before this Court, which are as follows:- (1) Parties appeared before the court below. (2) The parties were duly identified by their respective Counsels. (3) The terms of the compromise, was read over and explained to the signatories to the compromise. (4) The compromise was duly verified by the court, as per order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. 6. In view of the aforesaid steps taken by the learned trial court prior to the passing of the compromise decree dated 25.10.2018, at least the appellant, who had appeared before the court below and signed the compromise decree cannot be permitted to take the liberty, that he was not in a sound state of mind at the time of entering into the compromise, because of the alleged unproved theory of wrongful confinement, being made by the plaintiff/respondent or on the ground that he has filed various police complaints, as against the respondent/plaintiff. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, in his objections to the delay condonation application had submitted that the so-called theory of fraud having been played or lack of knowledge or wrongful execution of the compromise based on, not being in a sound state of mind, are dehors to the stand which was taken by the defendant/appellant themselves by filing an affidavit on 26.11.2018 in a Revenue Case No. 8 of 2008-09 "Sheetal Vs. Niranjan Kaur", which was instituted before the court of Assistant Collector; claiming a right of declaration by invoking the provisions contained under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In fact, if the affidavit, which has been filed by the appellant before the court of learned Assistant Collector, is taken into consideration the said compromise itself was made as part of the affidavit which was filed by the appellant on 26.11.2018, and particularly, the pleadings which were raised in paragraph no.6 of the said compromise becomes relevant for our consideration in the present First Appeal, which are as follows:- 8. In the aforesaid paragraph no.6 of the said affidavit which was filed in the revenue proceedings. In the aforesaid paragraph no.6 of the said affidavit which was filed in the revenue proceedings. In fact the attempt was made by the appellant, to dilute the proceedings under 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and it was based on the compromise itself, on which he has placed reliance way back on 26.11.2018. In order to establish that there was no need to consider the suit for declaration under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as the appellant's case was that the dispute already stands resolved amongst them by compromise decree dated 25.10.2018. 9. In that eventuality, he cannot be permitted to take an advantage of the somersault stand now that the compromise decree dated 25.10.2018 was obtained by playing a fraud and once he himself has filed an affidavit, he himself has admitted the execution of the compromise, in the proceedings of Revenue Case No.8 of 2008-09 "Sheetal Vs. Niranjan Kaur", which in fact shows that the same was verified by the respective counsels, it would fall to be a valid compromise within the ambit of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, and the knowledge of which was very well there with the appellant in the year 2018 itself. 10. The institution of the first appeal along with the delay condonation application (CLMA No.6343 of 2020) by filing it before the Registry of this Court on 19.08.2020, I am of the view that the theory and the philosophy of fraud or the wrongful confinement which was taken by the appellant for the condonation of delay is not satisfactorily explained and does not reposed confidence, in view of the findings which has been recorded in the compromise decree which was passed by the learned trial court because the allegations of seeking condonation of delay, itself creates cloud, as it is against the court, which had exercised its judicial proceedings as contemplated under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, while passing a compromise decree on 25.10.2018. Hence, I am not satisfied with the reasons given therein in the delay condonationn application. Hence the delay condonation application (CLMA No.6343 of 2020) is rejected. Consequently, the first appeal too would stands dismissed.