1
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.80/1985
LRs of Bhanwar Lal Vs. LRs of Meena Devi & Ors.
Date of Order :: 7th August 2008.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the appellants.
Mr.R.R.Nagori )
Mr.Sushil Bishnoi for)
Mr.Manoj Bhandari ) for the respondents.
....
BY THE COURT:
Civil suit for recovery of possession, declaration and
perpetual injunction (CO No.13/1980) having been dismissed
by the learned District Judge, Bikaner on 11.05.1985, the
unsuccessful plaintiff Bhanwar Lal filed this first appeal on
06.08.1985 arraying the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, Smt. Meena
Devi, Bheru Lal, Jai Narain and Lal Chand as respondents
No.1,2, 3 and 4 respectively. This appeal was admitted for
consideration on 02.09.1985; and on 01.11.1985, the
contesting respondent No. 1 filed her cross-objections in
relation to some of the findings of the Trial Court.
The plaintiff-appellant Bhanwar Lal thereafter expired
and his legal representatives were substituted as appellants in
his place. The contesting respondent No.1 Meena Devi also
expired and for representation of her estate, the respondents
2
Nos. 1/1 and 1/2, Mahesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, were
ordered to be substituted by the order dated 15.09.2006 with
similar substitutions in the connected cross-objections. It has
been pointed out on behalf of the respondent No.1/2 Dinesh
Kumar that he has not claimed himself to be the legal
representative of the deceased defendant-respondent Smt.
Meena Devi and has admitted the respondent No.1/1 Mahesh
Kumar to be her adopted son.
The respondent No.2 Bheru Lal was also reported to
have expired and steps having not been taken in his relation,
the appeal abated against him as ordered on 10.10.2003. It
has also pointed out that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Jai
Narain and Lal Chand, too have no direct interest in this
litigation and nobody is appearing on their behalf.
An application (IA No.9052/2008) has been moved in
this case stating that the contesting parties have arrived at a
compromise. While referring to the aforementioned
background facts, it has further been stated that Smt. Indra,
wife of Shri Jagdish Prasad and daughter of late Shri
Bhanwarlal, has also expired. The said Smt. Indra was
substituted on record as one of the legal representatives of the
deceased appellant Bhanwal Lal but has been described as
the legal representative of Meena Devi in paragraph 5 of the
said application; and another application (IA No.9895/2008)
3
has been moved today with the submissions that such
description of Smt. Indra had been for a typographical error in
the said paragraph 5 of the compromise filed before the Court.
It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the name of the said Smt.Indra may be ordered
to be struck off the record. In view of the submissions so made
by the learned counsel for the appellant, the name of the
appellant No.1/6 Smt. Indra is ordered to be deleted from the
array of the parties and a note to that effect be put against her
name.
It is further prayed on behalf of the parties that in terms
of their compromise as stated in the aforesaid application (IA
No. 9052/2008), the legal representatives of the appellant wish
to withdraw the present appeal as well as the original civil suit
bearing No. 13/1980 and the legal representative of the
respondent No. 1 also wish to withdraw the cross-objections
filed in this appeal. It has also been stated that Mahesh Kumar
shall withdraw the other civil original suit bearing number
237/2003 (New number 198/2005) pending in the Court of
Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner.
The application aforesaid (IA No. 9052/2008) in the form
of deed of compromise has been signed by the surviving legal
representatives of the deceased appellant Bhanwar Lal and by
the legal representative of the respondent No.1 Meena Devi;
4
and has been attested by the Notary Public at Bikaner on
09.07.2008. Counsel for the parties prays for disposal of the
matter in terms of the compromise between parties.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, the appellants are permitted to withdraw
Original Civil Suit No.13/1980; and the suit stands dismissed
as withdrawn. The suit itself having been withdrawn, the
present appeal and related cross-objections are rendered
redundant and are dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed.
No costs.
Interlocutory applications aforesaid also stand disposed
of.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
s.soni-