TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before the trial Court as has been averred. Apprehension raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a finding would prejudicially affect the petitioner at the time of trial of the suit is unfounded, as it is abundantly clear that learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter on the basis of evidence to be led before it by the respective parties. Whether or not the present transaction was a part of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent, is clearly the subject matter of trial and shall be decided accordingly by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, which would be produced before it. Petition dismissed. - CR No. 2649 of 2020 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 6-4-2021 - HON'BLE MRS. JUS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of her mother Jasveer Kaur. The matter was claimed to have been settled between the parties with the intervention of Panchayat, in which respondent agreed to pay a total sum of ₹ 2 lakhs in two installments, one in the month of October, 2016 and second in the month of January, 2017. Petitioner's daughter Amardeep Kaur accordingly assured that after receipt of the first installment by her, she would withdraw the suit for recovery filed by her mother and complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be withdrawn after receipt of second installment in January, 2017. Respondent claimed to have paid ₹ 1 lakh in the presence of witness on 15.10.2016 i.e. before 19.10.2016, the date in the civil sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich prevented the respondent-defendant from appearing in the suit filed by the petitioner. Ex-parte judgment and decree was thus set aside and suit was restored to its original number. Aggrieved therefrom this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 has been wrongly passed, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, for setting aside judgment dated 09.12.2016 has been allowed and execution petition filed by the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed by the learned Court vide order of even date. It is submitted that there are two different transactions entered into by the respondent, one with the present peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 27.08.2013. Said suit was decreed ex-parte on 09.12.2016. Amardeep Kaur, daughter of the petitioner admittedly filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act with the averments that respondent borrowed a sum of ₹ 3,30,000/- in April 2016 and in order to discharge his liability, he has issued a cheque dated 25.04.2016 for the said amount, which was returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny the time line of filing of the present suit by the petitioner as well as the complaint by the petitioner's daughter besides dates of the summons which were issued in the present suit as well as complaint. There is further no denial of the compromise, which was arrived at between the petitioner's daughter and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt as has been averred. Apprehension raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a finding would prejudicially affect the petitioner at the time of trial of the suit is unfounded, as it is abundantly clear that learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter on the basis of evidence to be led before it by the respective parties. Whether or not the present transaction was a part of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent, is clearly the subject matter of trial and shall be decided accordingly by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, which would be produced before it. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|