Libertatem Magazine

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

Contents of this Page

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory injunction against Respondents, which was originally allowed. The Respondents filed a petition against that Original Order for the settlement of the dispute and to conclude the proceeding(s). 

Brief Facts of the Case

As per the status report, the Petitioner previously filed a suit for the declaration, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction against Respondents over a property dispute. The judgment given in the case held the Defendants to be trespassers. The Order held that the Defendants did not have the right or title over the suit property. 

The Respondents were held qualified to the relief of vacant possession of the suit property. The Defendants were restrained from causing any kind of interference in any manner over the suit property except by the law.  

Subsequently, the Respondents filed a petition against the said judgment. In the petition, the Respondents asked the Court, whether these proceedings can be closed by taking on record the undertaking of the Appellant that he shall vacate the premises within a time period and pay the amount of compensation to the Petitioner. 

Arguments Made by the Petitioner 

The Petitioner, Parveen stated that the proceedings could be closed if the Respondents provide an undertaking that first that he will evacuate the suit property in issue on or before 30.10.2021. Second, he agreed to also pay the arrears of mesne profits.

Arguments Made by the Respondent 

The Respondents agreed to the demands of the Petitioner. The Respondents asked the Petitioner to close the case when aforesaid requirements of the Petitioner were fulfilled.

Observations Made by the Court

The court observed that the Respondents completed the aforementioned demands and requirements of the Petitioner. It further observed that both the parties have agreed to dispose of the petition through settlement. Thus, the petition was to be disposed of by consent between parties. 

Court’s Judgment

The court disposed of the petition as it was settled through mutual consent. The Court went to state that any breach of the undertaking given by the Appellant would result in consequences, including an action for filing of a wrong undertaking before the Court.

Click here to read the judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author