CHANDO DEVI Vs. AMAR NATH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present revision are as under :-

(2.) Counsel for the vendee-petitioner has argued that the present case did not fall under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in fact an application was made by the plaintiff Banwari under Order 23, Rule I C. P. C. for withdrawal of the suit as having been compromised. The terms of the agreement have not been spelt out in exhibit C-1 - It contains unilateral declaration by the plaintiff and his counsel that the parties have entered into a compromise and, therefore, he be permitted to withdraw the suit and further to withdraw 1/5th amount deposited by him as preemption money at the time of filing of the suit. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Exhibit C-1 was, in fact, an application for withdrawal of the in which would fall under Order 23, Rule I C. P. C. suit. This application was made, on the basis of some compromise which was entered into before the Panchayat. The contents of such agreement were, never placed on record. Such an application has to be treated as simple application for withdrawal of the suit. Exhibit C-I was duly signed by the plaintiff and his counsel. The plaintiff was well within his right to withdraw the suit without assigning any reason. In the application, although a reason has been stated that the suit is being withdrawn as having been compromised, but this would not put exhibit C-1 to be a compromise which is to be treated as one under Order 23, Rule 3 C. P. C.

(3.) Accordingly, this Revision Petition is accepted, the impugned order of the trial Court dated 20th September, 1991 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the suit is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.