JOGINDER SINGH Vs. PARAM JEET KAUR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned is dated 19.10.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of the compromise recorded on 15.11.2010 had been dismissed. Even today before this court there is a little explanation by the petitioner for impugning an order dated 19.10.2011 i.e. after a gap of more than 7 -1/2 months. On the ground of delay and latches alone this petition should not be entertained. There is no strict rule which binds this court on limitation yet if there is an unexplainable delay the petition may not be entertained. Be that as it may, even on merits the order impugned suffers from no infirmity.

(2.) RECORD shows that a suit had been filed by the plaintiff -Joginder Singh against his sister -in -law Param Jeet Kaur; the plaintiff was being represented by his next friend and guardian i.e. his wife namely Smt. Meena Kumari. On 15.11.2010, the parties had settled their disputes in terms of the settlement recorded in the compromise application Ex.P1; the order has noted that the parties shall bound by the terms of the aforenoted compromise; statements of the parties were record on oath. In terms of the compromise, the plaintiff had agreed to accept Smt. Param Jeet Kaur as an absolute and sole owner of the suit property bearing No. C -124, Vivek Vihar, Delhi -110095; in lieu thereof he was paid a sum of Rs. 15 lacs; all cases inter se pending between the parties would also foreclose. It is not in dispute that thereafter the petitioner/plaintiff has since vacated the suit premises; he has acted upon this compromise. This compromise as noted (supra) is dated 15.11.2010; the plaintiff/petitioner was however not happy with this compromise; attention has been drawn to the legal notice dated 04.12.2010 which had been sent by him and although in this legal notice he has mentioned about the compromise recorded on 15.11.2010 but there is no mention that the defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lacs in lieu of the aforenoted settlement; in fact this legal notice was harping upon a settlement which does not in any manner form a part of Ex. P1 or the order dated 15.11.2010; it spoke of a settlement of Rs. 45 lacs which was not a part of Ex. P1. In this background, the petitioner seeking setting aside of this compromise which was duly arrived at between the parties (which nowhere found mention in Ex. P1) is without any force. The application seeking recall of the compromise decree dated 15.11.2010 was then filed on 23.12.2010; it is not as if the petitioner even in this application has challenged the terms of the compromise; his contention is that there was a delay on the part of the defendant in the payment of cheque; again in this application there is a reference to a payment of Rs. 45 lacs; how the figure of 15 lacs has appeared in the compromise Ex. P1 has neither been explained and in fact, no efforts have been made in this application to explain this discrepancy; a mere bald submission that a fraud has been played upon the applicant/petitioner would not be sufficient to set aside the compromise which has been recorded on a joint application moved by both the parties; the plaintiff having been represented through his next friend and guardian (i.e. his wife namely Meena Kumar) who has signed the aforenoted application (under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and detailed statements of all the respective parties including Smt. Meena Kumari had been recorded on oath.