OM NARAYAN Vs. NARONAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control act, 1961. It was pleaded that tenants Om Narayana and Badri Prasad are in arrears. These two persons are son and father. The matter was compromised. A compromise decree was passed on 15.3.1983.

(2.) AT the time when the compromise was recorded Om Narayan was not present. The counsel however stated that he is competent to make statement on behalf of both Om Naryana as also Badri Badri Prasad. Badri Prasad was present also at the at time. The compromise was recorded. Compromise decree as noticed above came to be passed. As there was default in the matter of sticking to the compromise execution of decree was sought. It was at that stage, an argument was raised that the compromise decree cannot be given effect to as one of the parties i.e. Om Narayan had not signed the compromise and that he was not present on the date, when compromise was recorded by the trial Court. This objection was taken note of by the executing Court. This objection was accepted. It was held that only Om Narayan would not be bound by the decree and it could be executed against Badri Prasad. A revision petition was preferred by the Badri Prasad. In this revision it was held not only Badri his son Om Narayan would equally be bound.

(3.) I am of the view that both Badri Prasad and Om Narayan are bound by the compromise decree. No doubt an amendment was made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1983 in 1976 and it is provided that compromise has to be in writing and signed by the parties. Yet effect of the statement of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be ignored. Before proceeding further provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 be examined. These read as under :-