Cb BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. (^M Of 2004. ^. APPLICANT DEFENDANT L.M. Pandey, son ofLate M.M. Pandey aged about 51 years, resident ofVaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) VER S U S NON-APPLICANTS X. PLAINTIFFS ^^ '. . (L^. S Prem Singh Chouhan, son ofLate Dharm Singh Chouhari, aged about 63 years, ^.4^.^.. d A- Smt. Brajesh Chouhan, wife of Prem y"' ncr:.rrr:... ..<x- ^•'•' ^' 0-/ ^' Both resident of Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ^y CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^syf^ .^_^_^J^^^^^^ XI-HC-22 / ^^ ^i^icn^l, ^Tfl^^<o, Is|<nw^< 311^1 ^51 Cft ,^,c:f.:.m/.^^ ^ ITR^IT^RT^ 3:n^r^T \ f^ri^^n^T 5b^icb^f?cT < ^ 3TT^T ^<TTW^I^c[ ^ 1A>03/2005 Shri Uttam Pandey couns| Shri H.B. Agrawal learnec| for the respondent. Heard. This revision has been fil CPC agfainst the order dated Judge, Durg inCivil Suit No. applicant under Order 12 Rule 6 |of CPC l^d by the applicant under Section 115 of 17/08/2004 passed byAdditional District by which the application filed by the has been dismissed. 6-8^2002 Learned counsel for the an application under Order 12 ground that parties had enterecf compromise an application of the High Court in M.A. No. 7( agreed to compromise the Rs. 6,00,000/-'on 29/09/200(1 Rs. 1,00.000/- on 21/11/2000 plaintiffwith interest at the rate till payment and on the basis 21/01/2003 passed in M.A. No. Lok Adalat for amicable settlem< the applicant that as per the deposited Rs. 9,00,000/- and <=hl^Td^^ 41^dT^tec^'<^l^l< ^3Tf^T3TI^T 1 for the applicant. Sr. Counsel with Smt. Usha Chandrakar a^plicant submite that the applicant moved IRule 6 of CPC of Annexure - F on the into a compromise and on the basis of Abnexure-A dated 09/01/2003 was flled in ^7/2001. By thjs application the parties juit on the condition that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 04/11/2000 and w|3uld be retumed by the defendant to the 13 % per annum from the date of receipt of t^is application this Court vide order dated ^87/2001 directed the parties to approach ^nt expeditiously. It is further submitted by terms of the compromise the applicant 3.0P.OOO/- respectively on 17/07/2003 before XI-HC-22 3:n^T^)T f^ri^w^r 5h^i<=b;?rfN' L. <. 3^ ^Nid^, ^Ti1<ri^<o, fs«ni^y ^^c.:fc.i?.V^.^ ^r f^5^ ^<€ 3T1^T^<TTW^1N ^ the trial Courtand the non-appli^ant filed for withdrawal of the amount ancj the trial Court permitted the plaii|itjff the applicant though the sam^ aforesaid conduct amounts to below ought to have allowed dismissed the suit of the plainti^ Court recording a finding that in | defendant no issue has been admission does not arise and in| defendant, no judgment under againsttheplaintiff. Heard counsel forthe parti ahd By this Court, the parties in the light of the compromise theLok Adalat. However, there is| itcan be said that the parties h^ applicatjon of compromise as pe|r pending before the trial Court the| defendant claim and therefore the qyestio|i ^^ir arise and the judgm&nt under (prder passed and the suit cannot be di^missed. ^1^1^41Ti WT^ff ^te^<Ri<^i< ^3ti^T3n^T an application dated 26/07/2003 even after the objection by the applicant to withdraw the amount deposited by has rtot been withdrawn. Thus, the ^dmission of the piaintiff and the Court the application of the defendant and F. However, by the impugned order, the |the absence of any counter claim by the |framed and therefore, the question of the absence of the counter claim of the (prder 12 rule 6 of CPC can be passed es. (vere directed to approach the Lok Adalat the matter was to be compounded in no material available on record bywhich ^ve compromised the dispute as per the i|r Annexure-A and further that in the suit has not preferred any counter >t» of admission by the plaintiff does not (prder 12 Rule 6 of the CPC cannot be ^fe^) / XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T R?Tt^3TT^T rf?cT 5b^|Gb^T ^ .^ Jyo ^ '^ 3^T -^NKn^, ^Tfl<rt4i$, [si<ni<iy ® q^^> HI^C<11t$bHI<^ 3TT^T c'^n^i/o' >• »»t?77,^ l /»•^/ . ^ »i» f^^' ^ <aoo— 3TI^T?^T^K^i:?cT -3 - Thus, this Court is of tft impugned order and the revisioi|i it is dismissed. chi^f^i41-i wraY^tel^t<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T e view that there is no iilegality in the is liable to be dismissed and accordingly Sd/- ^ 1 DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge | (^^f^)