BHAGWATI PRASAD BUDHOLIYA Vs. RADHA CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 2nd March, 2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 90A/91 of First Additional Judge to District Judge, Gwalior at Dabra, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed this revision petition on the ground that before entertaining an application for rejection of compromise between the parties, an enquiry as envisaged under Rule 3, Order 23, Civil Procedure Code is mandatory.

(2.) IT is not disputed that parties in the case filed a compromise petition on 18.12.1992 and the statements of both the parties were recorded on the same day wherein they accepted the compromise. However, after about a month on 16.12.1992, defendant No. 2/respondent Arun Kumar filed an application resiling the compromise on the ground that he was pressurised to enter into the compromise.

(3.) THE Apex Court in case of Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, as reported in AIR 1993 SC 1139 has held that a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23, or an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code, in which he can now question the validity of the compromise in view of Rule 1A of Order 43 of the Code. If the agreement or the compromise itself is fraudulent then it shall be deemed to be void within the meaning of the explanation to the proviso to Rule 3 and as such not lawful. When the Amending Act introduces a proviso along with an explanation to Rule 3 of Order 23 saying that where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, "the Court shall decide the question", the Court before which a petition of compromise is filed and which has recorded such compromise, has to decide the question whether an adjustment or satisfaction had been arrived at on basis of any lawful agreement. To make the enquiry in respect of validity of the agreement or the compromise more comprehensive, the explanation to the proviso says that an agreement or compromise "which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act" shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the said Rule.