M SUBBIAH Vs. M RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26.6.2000, when C.M.P.No.2795 of 2000 filed to pass suitable orders to enable the parties to enforce the compromise filed in I.A.No.696 of 1997 in O.S.No.22 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai has been taken up for consideration, with the consent of both parties and under Strong belief that instead of dealing with the C.M.P., the main C.R.P. itself can be taken up for consideration for better appreciation of facts and circumstances, the main C.R.P. itself has been taken up for consideration.

(2.) THE plaintiffs Nos.5, 6, the proposed 7th plaintiff and defendant Nos.2, 28 and 29 in the suit have filed the above civil revision petition against the other defendants to the suit in O.S.No.22 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai against the fair and decretal order 4.11.1998 made in I.A.No.696 of 1997 by the said court.

(3.) IT has been further pointed out by the court below that the petition filed is not for passing a final decree following the preliminary decree, but to record the compromise, though the terms of decree having already been determined and hence filing an application under O.23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of registering the compromise alone is not acceptable and the same is irregular. The court below has also discredited the attitude of parties remarking that when a preliminary decree had been passed in the suit and without fixing any date when the case is adjourned sine die, accepting the proposed compromise as it is sought for on the part of the petitioners which is neither legal nor acceptable on facts further remarking that without filing an application by parties to the application under the relevant provisions of law filing only a compromise decree as proposed in the memo, is further unacceptable.