PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. FARISHTA HOTELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the order dt. 19.11.1996 passed on the application moved by the defendant saying that the suit has been satisfied under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevily hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The Court rejected the application which was moved in Civil Suit No. 78 -A/96. This order is challenged on the ground that the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in view of the requirement of proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code.

(2.) THOUGH the facts for the purpose of controversy are not necessary, peripheral relevance in required. It is a case in which no issue was framed and no issue has come forward and the order was passed only on the application. Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code is extracted below:

(3.) SECOND case relied on was Bhaja Govinda Maikad v. Janki Devi A.I.R. 1980 Ori 108 and the learned counsel has placed reliance on paragraph 3, which contains the provision of Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code, as has been amended. In that case the Court relied on the words in Rule 3 "So far as it related to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject -matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject -matter of the suit." The Court considered that if a party to a suit alleges that a suit has been adjusted by a lawful agreement and applied to be Court to record and agreement and to pass a decree in accordance therewith but the other party to the suit denies the agreement or wishes to resile from it the question arises whether the Court has power in the one case to decide if the agreement was effected and to pass a decree accordingly; and in the other case to pass a decree in spite of the other party's reluctance. A mention was there about the case of Bandhu Bhagat v. Shah Muhammad Teeju ILR (1892) 14 All. 350 wherein the Allahabad High Court had taken the view that unless parties to the compromise appeared before the Court and accepted the terms, at the moment of moving the Court, the Court had no jurisdiction to record the compromise.