VOGIRALA NAGESWARARAO Vs. VEMAVARAPU SITHARAMAKRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, a revision of the order of the District Munsif, Guntur, dismissing a petition under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to reject the compromise filed into Court by the parties is sought. The facts material for the present enquiry are these :

(2.) Ten days thereafter, the application giving rise to this Civil Revision Petition was filed with the allegations that the applicant was anxious that plaintiff's son should not incur divine displeasure by taking the money in the way indicated in the memorandum of compromise and that further such a compromise was an illegal and invalid one and could not be enforced. This was opposed by the respondent-plaintiff. The application was rejected by the District Munsif who opined that if the plaintiff's son was prepared to take the amount in the presence of the deity it was his look-out and that the defendant need not exhibit any concern over the matter and that there was no substance in the plea relating to the invalidity.

(3.) In this petition, it is urged by Mr. Ramanarasu that the compromise in question does not fall within the purview of Order 23, rule 3 and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer in the petition. According to the learned counsel in order to constitute an adjustment within the meaning of Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the parties should agree upon some terms concerning the subject-matter of the suit which could be embodied in the decree on the strength of which the suit could be given a disposal. But, in a case where the nature of the decree to be passed depended upon the result of an enquiry as to whether subsequent to the agreement certain acts have been done in pursuance thereof, it could not be said to have been adjusted so as to attract the provisions of Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. In such a situation, it is difficult to say that the decree was passed by consent.