AKULA SATYAVATHI Vs. P N VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing the suit recording the compromise entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner who has instituted the suit against the defendant (respondent herein) for recovery of possession and damages. While the written statement was filed, issues were settled and the suit was heading for trial, at that time, the parties invoked the intervention of P.W.2, a mediator, for settling the matter. Ex.X-1 was executed by both the plaintiff and the defendant in that regard. Pursuant to this, possession of the suit premises was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff and also an amount of Rs.5,000/- was said to be paid as against claim the damages of Rs.60,000/-. After Ex.X-1 was acted upon and after taking delivery of possession, the revision petitioner addressed a letter (Ex.A-1 signed by the plaintiff) to the District Educational Officer, Kakinada stating specifically that the matter has been compromised and as such, she is not pressing the suit filed against the defendant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram.

(3.) Thereafter, when the defendant has filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. to record the said compromise and to dismiss the suit, the revision petitioner contested the same stating that inasmuch as both the parties did not enter into a compromise and signed and filed into the Court, the Court is not entitled to entertain the same. Repelling the argument of the plaintiff, the Court below has accepted that there was a compromise entered into by the parties and as such, recorded the compromise. However, the Court below held that Rule 3 of Order 23 C.P.C. comprised of two parts and that only under the 1st part where the compromise entered into out of the Court, the agreement or compromise need be in writing and signed by the parties, and under the 2nd limb of the said rule, no such requirement is necessary. But, this order of the Court below is fallacious. Even though Mr. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the respondent- defendant seeks to justify the judgment of the Court below on the strength of the judgment in Manohar Lal vs. Surjan Singh, the same is non est in view of the said decision being over-ruled by the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpeer Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel. As such, I disagree with the reasoning of the Court below that under the 2nd limb of Rule 3 of Order 23 C.P.C., no written ageement, compromise or satisfaction is necessary. I hold that the entire Rule 3 of Order 23 C.P.C. has got to be read in composite manner and when it is read so, it leads to no doubt that for any compromise, agreement or satisfaction out of Court, the matter should be in writing and no plea with regard to oral agreement or compromise or satisfaction can be entertained. There should certainly be a document evidencing the same and that is the mandate of Or. 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. It has to be borne in mind that the words "in writing and signed by the parties" have been added by the Amending Act 1976 to Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. and if Rule 3 is dissected, the entire provision becomes otiose defeating the very object and intendment of the Amending Act which incorporated the provision having regard to the back ground of the vexatious litigation setting up oral compromises, agreements or satisfactions as the case may be.