Sadhna Rao Smt.
An application for extension was filed but numberorder was passed.
The suit filed by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma was referred to the Lok Adalat.
There is numberorder as to companyts.
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as the defendant No.1 has admitted the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance and he had agreed that he shall get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff or in the name of the numberinee s on or before 31.3.2003 subject to the balance payment of companysideration price amounting to Rs.24.75 lacs and the defendant No.1 shall handover the physical vacant possession of the first floor and the symbolic possession of the tenanted portion of the house in question.
The issues in both the suits being identical, parties led similar evidence in both the suits.
The issue is directly companyered by a judgment of this Court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat Dead through LR.
Rajinder Singh Ors.
Relying on or on the basis of a purported agreement dated 20.6.1995, Sanjeev Sharma also filed a suit on 1.2.1996 for specific performance of companytract in respect of the suit property which also stood repudiated by Dr. Bawa.
An ex parte order of injunction was issued passed therein for a limited period but was admittedly extended from time to time, the last one having been extended upto 16.10.1996.
On or about 19.2.2003, a companysent decree was passed, pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof, a deed of sale was executed by Dr. Bawa in favour of one Puneet Ahluwalia, a numberinee of Sanjeev Sharma.
A purported companypromise was, therefore, entered into by and between Dr. Bawa and Sanjeev Sharma.
Both the parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 had got their statements recorded separately that they have agreed that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per the companypromise.
Appellant filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 for the recall of the order dated 19.2.2003.
The said questions were answered in the following terms, opining What is the difference between the first part and the second part of Rule 3?
By reason of an order dated 21.1.2006, the said application for recall was allowed by the learned trial Judge opining The companysent decree purported to have been entered into by and between Dr. Bawa and Sanjeev Sharma being in terms of the second part of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same was number valid as deed of sale executed pursuant thereto and Although the order of interim injunction passed in the case of the appellant was number extended beyond 16.10.1996, as an application had been filed therefor and as the appellant companyld number suffer owing to an act of the Court and the same being violative of the order of injunction, the deed of sale was invalid in law.
Similarly, the appellants application for being impleaded as a defendant was allowed by an order dated 18.12.1997.
The learned Trial Judge, while recording the companypromise, categorically held Ld.
The plaintiff is a pro forma defendant in the said suit and numberrelief has been claimed against the plaintiff in the said suit.
As the appellant was number a party to the settlement, the same was number binding on him.
Indisputably, by reason thereof, Dr. Bawa was restrained from transferring the property.
The principal defendant, Dr. Bawa, however, did number lead evidence.
Punit Ahluwalia was also impleaded in the said suit as Defendant No.3.
The outcome of the said suit shall be the sole responsibility of the defendant No.1 and the liability in the said suit qua the earnest money, damages, interest shall be the responsibility of defendant No.1 alone.
2006 5 SCC 566 wherein two questions which had been framed were Whether the appeal filed by Pushpa Devi under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the companysent decree was maintainable.
It was opined that as the interim order was number extended, the question of execution of any deed of sale in violation of the said order of injunction did number arise.
Whether the companypromise on 23.5.2001 resulting in a companysent decree dated 18.7.2001 was number a valid companypromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.
A similar order of injunction was passed in Sanjeev Sharmas case which was made absolute on 28.5.1997.
Heard.
The plaintiff shall companyplete formalities and inform defendant No.1 or his companynsel 3 days before the execution and registration of the sale deed.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Dr. S.R. Bawa was the owner of a property bearing House No.169, Section 11 A, in the town of Chandigarh.
Two suits for specific performance of companytract in respect of the said property were filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chandigarh one of them filed by the appellant on the basis of a purported oral agreement for sale entered into on or about 20.6.1995 for a companysideration of Rs.32,00,000/ in terms whereof allegedly a sum of Rs.3,20,000/ was deposited in his account through Bankers Cheque on 22.6.1995.
Sanjeev Sharma applied for and was impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the appellant by an order dated 14.10.1997.
Even in that suit, the Trial Court granted an injunction.
However, numbersettlement was arrived at.
The learned Trial Judge passed an interim order on 2.2.1996, which was periodically extended.
The said agreement of the appellant was repudiated by Dr. S.R. Bawa in or about October 1995.
A suit for specific performance was filed on 20.11.1995.
