High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2011

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DIVISION) KINNAUR AT RAMPUR IN R.B.T. NO.16-I OF 2010/2009 TITLED M/s DEEP AUTO WORKS VS. M/S NARANG MOTORS WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 CPC READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEUDRE WITH THE PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.6.2011 BEING UNJUST AND ILLEGAL AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS. Coram The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record.

Respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit recovery of certain amount of money against the present petitioner-defendant. Petitioner filed an application, Whet her r epor t er s of t he l ocal paper s may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? (cid:133)2(cid:133) under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for recording compromise and passing a decree, on the basis of that compromise. Respondent-plaintiff contested the application. That application has been dismissed, vide order dated 14th June, 2011. Petitioner-defendant has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the said order and allowing his application, under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According petitioner-defendant, compromise was arrived at between the parties and reduced into writing, in the form of minutes of the meeting, dated 27th February, 2010, copy whereof is Annexure P-3. As per this compromise, petitioner- defendant was to pay a sum of ‘80,000/-, on account of the money found due from him, on settlement of accounts and in addition to that he was to have purchased 16 vehicles from the defendant, at the purchase price, within a month of the recording of the aforesaid minutes Annexure P-3. Petitioner went with two cheques, one for ‘80,000/- and another for ‘4,37,997/- to the respondent, on 16th March, 2010. Respondent allegedly accepted the cheques, but refused to deliver the vehicles. Petitioner then required his bankers not to make the payment of the cheques. Petitioner, however, withdrew certain complains, under the Negotiable (cid:133)3(cid:133) Instruments Act, filed by him, pursuant to Annexure P-3. He filed application, under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that since he had withdrawn the complaints, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, respondent-plaintiff was also bound to withdraw the suit.

Respondent-plaintiff took the plea that he had handed over ten vehicles, the purchase price of which was equivalent to the amount of second cheque (‘4,37,997/-), as the remaining six vehicles had already been sold by him, but the petitioner instructed his bankers not to pay the cheques and, therefore, he is not bound to withdraw the suit. Petitioner denies having been delivered ten vehicles.