LAWS(ORI)-2007-2-33

KALIA BARIK Vs. TIKESWAR DEO

Decided On February 05, 2007
Kalia Barik Appellant
V/S
Tikeswar Deo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patnagarh in C.S. No.93 of 2003 rejecting the compromise petition filed by the parties to the suit on the sole ground that the value of the property being more than Rs.100/ - and the sale transaction being through an unregistered document is hit by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such no compromise could be recorded.

(2.) BEFORE going to the merit of this revision it would be pertinent to state the factual proposition under which the Civil Suit was filed and the parties entered into compromise and filed compromise petition on the date of appearance of the defendants/opposite parties. The petitioner instituted the suit against the opposite parties arraying them as defendants praying therein for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and consequential relief. The suit land involved in the suit originally belonged to one Nruparaj Deo and the said Nruparaj was the recorded tenant in the current settlement in respect of the said land. These opposite parties/defendants are the two sons of said Nruparaj, the original recorded tenant and Nruparaj in order to meet his legal necessity sold the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.200/ - on 11.5.1983 and delivered possession thereof and the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land from the date of the transaction. Said Nruparaj died on 16.7.2003 leaving behind defendants/opposite parties and since after the death of Nruparaj the defendants/opposite parties threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, he filed the aforementioned civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patnagarh. Subsequently, the matter was amicably settled and the parties filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC to dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. In the said compromise the defendants/opposite parties admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge without considering the scope and ambit of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC rejected the compromise petition by the impugned order dated 23.4.2005.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the Court below while passing the order impugned has failed to appreciate that while considering a petitioner under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. he could not have gone to the legality of inter se arrangement between the parties but had to examine as to whether the compromise petition itself is void or not. He further contended that in absence of any materials to establish that the compromise petition itself is void, the learned Civil Judge could not have rejected the petition for compromise on the sole ground that the sale deed on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiff is based is not registered one. Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 postulates as under : -