BYRAM PESTONJI GARIWALA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant who is the defendant in Suit No. 309 of 1972 challenges the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Chamber Summons No. 838 of 1990 in Execution Application No. 242 of 1989 whereby the High Court held that the decree made against the defendant in terms of a compromise in writing and signed by counsel representing the parties, but not signed by the parties in person, was valid and binding on the parties, and in the absence of any challenge against the order made under Order XXI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code allowing execution of the decree, the defendant was no longer entitled to resist execution by recourse to Chamber Summons. The High Court found that the decree was valid and in accordance with the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, as amended by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976.

(3.) The only question which arises for consideration is as regards the construction of Order XXIII, Rule,3, C.P.C. We shall read this provision, as amended by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, bracketing the newly added words: