Patna High CourtFA/225/2011disposed

Smt. Munni Devi And ORS v. Munna Kumar

2017-10-18Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

First Appeal No. 225 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Smt. Munni Devi, wife of Kailash Prasad

2. Smt. Rita Devi, wife of Pawan Kumar

3. Kailash Prasad, son of late Agnu Lal All resident of Mohalla Par Nawadah, Teli Tola, P.S. + Town+ District Nawadah.

.... .... Appellant

Versus

Munna Kumar, son of Bal Kishun Halwai, residnent of Mohalla Main Road, P.S. + Town+ District Nawadah.

.... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2017 Heard the parties on I.A. No. 5025 of 2017 which has been filed on behalf of the parties under Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC.

It is submitted on behalf of the parties that both parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and a compromise petition to this effect i.e. I.A. No. 5025 of 2017 has been filed but at the time of filing of I.A. No. 5025 of 2017, Sri Hans Raj, learned counsel of sole respondent could not sign the aforesaid compromise petition and, therefore, he should be permitted to put his signature on I.A. No. 5025 of 2017. The office has reported that one Sanju Devi, who is not party to this appeal, has sworn affidavit in support of compromise

Patna High Court FA No.225 of 2011 (5) dt.18-10-2017 2/2 petition.

It would appear from perusal of I.A. No. 5025 of 2017 that in support of compromise petition i.e. I.A. No. 5025 of 2017, all the appellants as well as sole respondent have sworn affidavit and one Sanju Devi, who happens to be wife of sole respondent, Munna Kumar has also sworn affidavit which was not at all essential. Therefore, the affidavit sworn on behalf of Sanju Devi be ignored.

Learned counsel Sri Hans Raj appearing on behalf of sole respondent is permitted to put his signature on I.A. No. 5025 of 2017 within course of the day.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this appeal stands disposed of with this observation that I.A. No. 5025 of 2017 shall be part of impugned decree.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U