SARDAR HARWANTH SINGH DHILLON Vs. SARDAR HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant preferred appeal under section 96 read with Order 43 Rule 1 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') against the Judgment and decree dated 6 -8 -2002 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in civil suit No. 1/1999, Harbhajan Singh Vs. Managing Committee and others. The impugned judgment and decree was passed after recording the compromise (paper No. 164 -A/1 to 164 -A/3) which was also made part of the decree.

(2.) THE challenge to the impugned judgment and decree is mainly on legal ground. It is not in dispute that original suit No. 1/1999 was instituted under section 92 of the 'Code' read with section 14 of Religious Endowment Trust Act. Suit under section 92 of the 'Code' is a representative suit and every agreement or compromise to be entered in a representative suit require compliance of the Rule 3 -6 of Order 23 of the 'Code'. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the compromise was 'unlawful as the same being filed and accepted in contravention of the said legal provision and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed on unlawful compromise need to be set aside.

(3.) ORDER 23 Rule 3 -B of the 'Code' is as follows : - "3 -8. No agreement or compromise to be entered in a representative suit without leave of Court. -