1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Firm M/s Virendra Kumar Rajkumar Bapna V/s. Narsingh Lal (S.B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.192/2010) S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code Date of Order :: April 28, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Rajesh Mootha for the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2010, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.12.2000, the plaintiff-respondent had sent a consignment of “Ajwayan” and “Posta” to the defendant- appellant for the purpose of it being sold in the market. According to the appellant, the said consignment was kept in his godown. The said goods was sold on 23.01.2002 for a consideration of Rs.23,365/-. Since there was some dispute between the appellant and the respondent, on 2 14.02.2002, a compromise was reached between the two. According to the appellant, in the compromise, it was clearly stated that “no amount is due between the parties and they shall not litigate against each other”. However, subsequently on 14.02.2003, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.57,440/-. Vide judgment dated 27.03.2010, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this civil first appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that once the compromise reached between the parties, the respondent is estopped from claiming the amount from the appellant. Secondly, since the consignment had been sold for only Rs.23,365/-, the respondent was not entitled to recover a sum of Rs.57,440/-. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned trial Court has meticulously discussed the evidence on the issue whether the 3 compromise entered between the parties on 14.02.2002 would act as an estoppel against the respondent or not ? According to the learned trial Court the compromise did not relate to the consignment of “Ajwayan” and “Posta” but related to separate consignment of “Dhaniya” (Coriander). Therefore, the learned trial Court has correctly concluded that as the agreement did not relate to the consignment in dispute; the said agreement could not be read against the respondent. Hence, the doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable against the respondent. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.54,440/- from the appellant. Hence, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned judgment. Thus, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-