PALANISAMI Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER ODDANCHATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the learned District Munsif, Palani, refusing to record the compromise in I.A.No.240 of 1993 in O.S.No.66 of 1992 for the reason that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in their representative capacity and though the compromise has been signed by the plaintiffs, who are representing the villages, as all the villagers are not parties to the compromise, the same could not be recorded.

(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. P. Kulandaivadivelu representing the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that it is not possible to obtain the signature from each and every villager, when especially the plaintiffs are representing the entire villagers, but the correct procedure for recording the compromise in the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is that, the publications has to be effected with regard to the terms of the compromise between the parties and in this case without resorting to that procedure the dismissal of the petition to record compromise is against law. No doubt under Order 23 Rule 3 B of the Civil Procedure Code, the compromise has to be entered into with the leave of the court, the court after taking into consideration of the representation of the villagers can consider the question of granting leave. For this purpose, the publication has to be effected in the village with regard to the terms agreed between the parties Order 1 Rule 8 Sub -Rule (4) of the civil procedure code makes it mandatory for the notice to the persons interested in the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the learned District Munsif ought to have ordered for publication of the terms of the compromise in the village, where all the parties are residing and thereafter take up the matter for consideration for granting leave in the compromise petition. As this was not done, the order of the court below has to be set aside.