IQBAL KRISHAN Vs. MAHARAJ KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side refusing to record a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC.

(2.) The parties are brothers. The suit property is H.No.B-6, Jangpura Extn., New Delhi. The plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner, has filed a suit for possession also for charges for use and occupation of a portion of the house. The case was posted for trial on 4th and 5th November 1993 when it was got adjourned. The parties were negotiating for mutual settlement.

(3.) On 25.2.94, the defendant moved an application bearing IA No.2207/94 alleging that the suit stood adjusted by lawful agreement/compromise as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3.11.93. However, the said application was got dismissed as not pressed. On 4.5.95, IA 4053/95 was moved for the recording of the same compromise as evidenced by the MOU dated 3rd November, 1993. The prayer was opposed by the plaintiff submitting that the MOU did not adjust the suit; the consideration for the MOU was executory which has stood frustrated; the agreement between the parties has fallen to the ground and hence it cannot be recorded as an adjustment of the suit.