SARDAR SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's application in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, refusing to record compromise.

(2.) THE plaintift opposite party filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant applicant. The defendant contested the suit. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs 1800/- as arrears of rent with a direction that the defendant shall pay future issue profits, damages at the rate of 50/- per month till the date of delivery of possession in addition to the decree for ejectment. The defendant filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, the parties appear to have entered into an agreement on 28. 4. 1976 outside the court. The terms of the agreement were signed by the defendant applicant as well as by the plaintiff-opposite party. The defendant made an application before the Additional, District Judge for deciding the appeal in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff-opposite party filed an objection and asserted that there was no adjustment of the suit and the agreement could not be given effect. The learned Additional District Judge refused to decide the appeal in terms of the agreement on the ground that the terms of the agreement did not make any adjustment of the suit either wholly or in part. The obligation to be performed by the parties to the suit depended on a third person who was not connected with the suit at all and the agreement placed heavy obligations on the landlord in whose favour a decree has already been passed by the trial court.

(3.) UNDER the aforesaid provision, if a compromise is filed before the court and a request is made to pass a decree in accordance with the terms contained there­in, the court is under a duty to satisfy itself, firstly, that under the terms of the agreement or compromise the stands adjusted wholly or in part and the agree­ment or compromise is lawful and is not prohibited by any law or public policy and the defendant has satisfied the plaintiff in respect of whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit and that the agreement and compromise relate to the suit. If these conditions are satisfied the court before which the compro­mise is filed is under a legal duty to pass decree in accordance with the terms of the agreement or compromise, but if the court is of the opinion that any of the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied it would not be under any duty to decree the suit in accordance with the terms contained in the agreement or com­promise. Further, if one of the parties disputes the compromise on the ground of deceit or fraud it is the duty of the court to investigate the same and if it is found that the agreement or compromise was not vitiated by fraud or deceit and that the same is lawful and relates to the subject matter of the suit, and otherwise it fulfills the requirements of order XXIII rule 3 the court shall pass a decree in accordance with the terms of the agreement or compromise even though one of the parties may have resiled from the agreement or com­promise. In the instant case, the parties appear to have entered into a written agree­ment on 28. 4. 1976. The agreement is in the following terms: