MANOHAR LAL Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE true import of O. 23, R. 3 Civil P. C. , in the context of a satisfaction of the plaintiff by the defendant in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit rested on the statement of the respective counsel of the parties in Court, is the spinal question which necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.

(2.) THE issue aforesaid arises out of a suit for specific performance. The case of the plaintiff-respondent herein was that he had paid Rs. 40,000/- by way of earnest money for the purchase of the property when the suit had reached the stage of argument the learned counsel for the parties on March 21, 1982, made the following statement before the Court, which was duly recorded on the said date :-

(3.) THE present civil revision has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners. The primary ground taken on their behalf is that the compromise had not been recorded in writing nor signed by the parties or their counsel. At the motion stage, reliance was placed on Dalip Singh v. Raj Mall. 1981 Punj LJ 298, and my learned brother Tewatia. J, expressing some doubt about the correctness of the view, admitted the case for a hearing by the Division Bench. That is how the matter is before us.