RAM SARUP Vs. NANAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plffs. They brought a suit as representatives of the Hindu community of the town of Hathras for an injunction restraining the opposite parties from making certain constructions round a well & a temple of Shiva. Permission of the Court was obtained under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but an appeal was preferred against that decision by the opposite parties. While the case was pending in the appellate Court, the suit was compromised & a decree was passed accordingly.

(2.) Sometime afterwards, the plffs., who were respondents to the appeal, applied to the appellate Court to have the compromise decree set aside. It is significant that the application was not pressed before the learned judge on the ground that the compromise was fraudulent, collusive or improper. A suggestion had been made in the petition of objection that the lawyers had no authority to enter into the compromise; but that position also was given up before the learned judge. The only point that was pressed before him was that no compromise could be effected in a suit, in which permission of the Court had been obtained under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C., without obtaining the Court's permission. It is this aspect of the case which has been argued before me.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. In my opinion, there is nothing in law which requires the permission of the Court before any such compromise can be effected. Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. says nothing about securing any such permission. Order 23, Rule 3 C. P. C. which empowers the Court to record a compromise, is also silent about obtaining any such permission. Where-ever it was the intention of the law that such permission should be taken, it has expressly said so, e.g., in the case of minors (Order 32, Rule 7 C. P. C.).