LOKUMAL TOPAN DASS Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 2-4-1998 passed by Sri V.B. Rai, Vth Additional District Judge, Etawah rejecting the applications paper Nos. 34-Ka, and 42-Ka, moved by the defendant revisionist in suit Nos. 97 of 1996 and 99 of 1996 instituted by Allahabad Bank for recovery of Rs. 61,36,671.18P and Rs. 1,75,95,489.45P respectively. It was alleged by the defendant-revisionist in the aforesaid applications that an agreement/compromise has been arrived at between them and the plaintiff-Bank and on the basis of the alleged compromise a decree may be passed in accordance there with by invoking the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC and accordingly the two suits be decided. The plaintiff-Bank filed objections and denied the factum of compromise/agreement. After taking into consideration the affidavits, correspondence and circumstances of the case, the Court below has come to the conclusion that it is proved that a compromise/agreement was arrived at between the parties in the aforesaid two suits but refused to decide the suits in the absence of an agreement/compromise in writing and duly signed by the parties for invoking the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC.

(2.) Heard Sri Swami Dayal, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri B.K. Bisaria, learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank-opposite party.

(3.) It is indubitable fact that there is no compromise/agreement in writing and signed by the parties. Now the moot point for consideration is whether in the absence of any written and signed compromise/agreement, between the parties, a decree in accordance with the alleged compromise which has been proved otherwise, can be passed under the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC.