Laxmilal vs Ramnarain & Ors on 15 July, 2009

0
53
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Laxmilal vs Ramnarain & Ors on 15 July, 2009
                                  1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 AT JODHPUR

                           :ORDER:

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.225/2004.
(Lakshmi Lal Vs. Ram Narayan & Others)


DATE OF JUDGMENT :                      July 15, 2009.


                           PRESENT

   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
   ____________________________________


Mr. Rameshwar Hedau for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Mankad for the respondent(s).

BY THE COURT :

In this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging

order dated 28.01.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge

(Sr. Dn.), Bheem (Rajsamand) upon application filed under

Section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside judgment and

compromise decree dated 29.11.1997.

According to facts, a compromise decree was passed

by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Devgarh in Case No.623/86 on

29.11.1997. In the application filed under Section 151,

C.P.C., it is stated by the petitioner that while disclosing false

facts and pressure compromise was prepared and verified

and, on that basis, compromise decree was passed by the

trial Court which is nullity. Learned trial Court, after framing

issues upon the application filed under Section 151, C.P.C.,
2

rejected the application by the impugned order which is

under challenge.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents

pointed out that in execution proceedings initiated for

execution of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1997,

similar objections were raised by the petitioner and, later on,

those objections were rejected by the trial Court, against

which, revision filed before this Court was also dismissed.

I have perused the impugned order and, so also,

considered the fact of the case that the petitioner has made

a prayer under Section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside the

compromise decree; but, the learned trial Court after framing

issues adjudicated the matter and rejected the application

while recording cogent finding of fact that petitioner has

failed to prove his case that compromise was made under

pressure, in which, there is no error requiring any

interference.

Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.

Ojha, a.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *