SHANTI DEVI Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated August 7, 1984, whereby the application filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner for dismissing the suit on account of the compromise outside the Court, was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Bimla Devi, filed the suit for pre-emption. On September 6, 1983, she appointed one Kishan Lal alias Krishan Lal as her special attorney. The said Kishan Lal entered into the compromise with the vendee-defendant and consequently, filed the application dated April 23, 1984, to the effect that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff did not want to proceed with the suit and that the same be dismissed. On April 26, 1984, the plaintiff Bimla Devi, moved the application for cancellation/withdrawal of the special power of attorney in favour of the said Kishan Lal. On May 14, 1984, the defendant Shanti Devi, moved the application under Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) with the prayer that the suit be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise entered into between the parties outside the Court. That application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Bimla Devi. The learned trial Court took the view that since there was no written compromise between the parties and because of the specific denial of the same by the plaintiff, the question of dismissing the suit as withdrawn on the basis of the compromise outside the Court did not arise. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the application dated April 23, 1984, filed by plaintiff through Krishan Lal, was to be disposed of in accordance with law. There was no question of recording any compromise as such because no relief was being sought on the basis of any compromise. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code, were not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the trial Court, in this behalf, was wrong and misconceived. On the other hand, the learned counsel, for the respondent stated that since there was no compromise entered into between the parties, in writing, as contemplated under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the suit could not be dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of any compromise. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Dalip Singh v. Raj Mall, 1981 PunLJ 298.