2025:HHC:5338 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 74 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.03.2024 Nek Ram …Petitioner Versus Meera …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( O ral ) The parties have compromised the suit that was so recorded by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.311 of 2014 and on the basis of this, obviously a decree came to be drawn. 2. The defendant thereafter filed an application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application filed by the applicant/defendant may be allowed and he may be allowed to rescind the compromise Exh. C.A and the civil suit referred to above may be ordered to be restored to the files 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 of this learned court and decided on merit in the interest of justice.” 3. Along with this application, another Application No.3384 of 2025 under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed for restoring files of the suit of the learned Court and thereafter yet another application for injunction was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. All these applications came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide two orders passed on 18.01.2025, which read as under:- “Application under Section 151 CPC Heard. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for rescinding the compromise Ex.CA and for restoration of the civil suit. During consideration on this application, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that main case has been decreed on the basis of the compromise Ex.CA and he wants to rescind the said compromise and decree by way of present application. Since, main case filed has been disposed of, an application under Section 151 CPC cannot be proceeded with independently. As such, the same is dismissed. Be tagged with main case file. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC “Heard. The present application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for restraining the non-applicant from getting the mutation of the suit land in her favour on the basis of compromise decree dated 29.07.2021. During consideration on this application, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that main case has been decreed on the basis of the compromise Ex.CA. Since, main case filed has been disposed of, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC cannot be proceeded with independently. As such, the same is dismissed. Be tagged with main case file.” 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the defendants/petitioners have filed the instant petition, primarily on the ground that the learned trial 3 Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of the suit by simply rejecting the application as the correct provision of law was not mentioned therein. 5. I find no merit in this petition, given the fact that the specific prayer made by the applicant was for restoring the suit by rescinding the compromise (Exhibit C.A) without making a specific prayer for recalling the judgment and decree, which was passed on the basis of the compromise deed (Exhibit C.A). As regards the dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC; Once the suit had been decreed, the trial Court had become functus officio, more particularly, when even the application for revival of the suit had been dismissed. 6. In such circumstances, obviously, the learned trial Court was left with no option but to have dismissed both the applications for injunction as well as a separate application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoring the files of the suit to the learned Court. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge March 07, 2024 (Ankit)