High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Hind Furniture Emporium vs Neeraj Kumar And Another on 8 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Hind Furniture Emporium vs Neeraj Kumar And Another on 8 July, 2009
Regular Second Appeal No. 175 of 2004                      -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                              Regular Second Appeal No. 175 of 2004
                              Date of Order: 08.07.2009

M/s Hind Furniture Emporium, Anand Market,
Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar through Ranbir Singh
its partner and another
                                                             ....Appellants

                                 Versus

Neeraj Kumar and another
                                                           ..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant

Mr. A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate
for the respondent

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).

The appellant-firm though its partner, challenges the judgment

and decree dated 31.10.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge,

Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-

landlord, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1999, passed

by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri and as a consequence

decreeing the suit for possession and damages.

During the pendency of this appeal, and with the able assistance

of their counsel, parties have resolved their differences. In furtherance

thereto, the appellant filed an affidavit dated 07.07.2009 setting out the

terms and conditions of the settlement. However, a fresh affidavit dated

08.07.2009 has been filed in court today and is taken on record.

Counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the appeal be disposed

of in terms of the affidavit dated 08.07.2009 and the affidavit dated

07.07.2009 be struck off the record. A relevant extract from the affidavit

dated 08.07.2009, filed by Ranbir Singh son of Shri Naurata Ram, reads

as follows:-

Regular Second Appeal No. 175 of 2004 -2-

“3. That the deponent/appellant filed the above mentioned

Regular Second Appeal and the same is listed for

motion hearing on July 8, 2009.

4. That the deponent/appellant accepts the correctness of

the judgment and decree dated October 31, 2003

passed by the Appellate Court.

5. That the deponent/appellant undertakes to vacate the

premises on or before January 7, 2011 and further

undertakes to hand over the vacant possession of the

premises to the owner, Neeraj Kumar.

6. That the deponent/appellant undertakes to deposit an

amount of Rs.2,550/- in advance to the

owner/respondent within seven days from today and

further sum of Rs.2,550/- shall be paid to the land-

owner Neeraj Kumar on or before January 13, 2010

and to pay further sum of Rs.2,550/- to the owner

Neeraj Kumar on or before July 12, 2010.

7. That in case the vacant possession is not handed over

to the owner Neeraj Kumar on or before January 7,

2011, for any reason whatsoever and/or if default in the

payment of the amount as aforesaid is made, the

owner shall be entitled to execute the decree dated

October 31, 2003 for possession and recovery against

the deponent/appellant and/or any one claiming under

or through him, shall have no right whatsoever to file

any objection or to resist the decree in any manner.

Further, in case of non-delivery of vacant possession

as aforesaid, or in default in any manner, the

deponent/appellant shall straightway be liable for
Regular Second Appeal No. 175 of 2004 -3-

contempt of this Hon’ble Court.

8. That the deponent/appellant, his legal representatives,

assignees or any one claiming under or through him in

any manner, shall not have any right to stay in the

premises after January 6, 2011.”

In addition, Mr. Ranbir Singh son of Naurata Ram, who is present

in court and has been duly identified by his counsel, states that he has no

objection if the amount deposited by him pursuant to orders passed by the

Executing Court, is released to respondent no.1. He further states that

respondent no.2, the other partner has since passed away. Shri Neeraj

Kumar, the landlord-respondent no.1 accepts the aforementioned affidavit

and statement and states that he would not execute the judgment and

decree upto 06.01.2011.

In view of the settlement between the parties, the appeal is

dismissed as withdrawn. However, the judgment and decree passed by

the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dated

31.10.2003 shall remain in abeyance upto 07.01.2011. The appellant shall

vacate the premises on or before 06.01.2011. The terms and conditions of

his affidavit dated 08.07.2009 shall be read as a part of this order. In case

the appellant does not vacate the possession, respondent no. 1 would be

free to execute the decree in terms of the affidavit dated 08.07.2009 filed

by Ranbir Singh son of Naurata Ram. Respondent no.1 shall be entitled to

withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant, pursuant to orders passed

by Executing Court.

It is made clear that this order shall have no bearing on any other

litigation that may be pending inter-parties. The affidavit dated 07.07.2009

is struck off the record.

July 08, 2009                                      (RAJIVE BHALLA)
nt                                                       JUDGE
 Regular Second Appeal No. 175 of 2004   -4-