LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY vs PRAKASH CHAND RAWAT on 23 March, 2015

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-003232-003232 - 2015Official PDFBench Kurian Joseph, R. BanumathiAdvocates DIVYA ROY
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NOS. 3 & 4/2016 IN & CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3232/2015
RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRAKASH CHAND RAWAT RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the

disputes have been settled between them. In I.A.

Nos.3 & 4/2016, this Court on 6.2.2017 passed the

following order:-

“In these two applications, the prayer is

to the following effect:

“(a) allow the respondent/applicant to

file additional documents i.e.

Annexure A-1, Cancellation Deed dated

31.08.2016 and Annexure A-2 Bank Draft

dated 22.08.2016 drawn on Indian

Oversea Bank in favour of the

appellant in order to bring on record

the subsequent events;

(b) and accordingly dismissal of the

appeal as infructuous in view of

subsequent events as pointed out

above; and

(c) pass such other and further

order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit in the interest of justice.”

It is submitted by learned counsel for

the appellant that though he has

communicated with the appellants about

the present application as well as the

deed of cancellation of agreement to

sell, he has not yet got any response.

In view of the aforesaid, we think it

appropriate to direct the learned

District Judge, Agra to conduct an

enquiry after issuing notice to the

parties whether the deed of cancellation

of “agreement to sell” as contained in

Annexure A-1 and the receipt of Bank

Drafts by the appellant within eight

weeks hence and send a report thereof to

this Court.

A copy of the order along with the

interlocutory applications be sent to the

learned District Judge, Agra to do the

needful in the matter.

List the matter after ten weeks.”

2.The District Judge, Agra, to whom this Court had directed to verify, has in the Report dated 27.2.2017 submitted that there is a genuine settlement between the parties. JUDGMENT

3.Therefore, I.A. No.3 is allowed.

4.C.A. No.3232/2015 is taken on the Board.

5.The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous, in view of the settlement between the parties.

6.Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

7.There shall be no orders as to costs. [KURIAN JOSEPH] [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI; APRIL 24, 2017. JUDGMENT