KARTAR SINGH YADAV Vs. MAHALA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an order recording a compromise in a suit pending before the trial Court for injunction. The short facts which emerge in the course of arguments and from the order relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are, that Respondent Mahala Ram filed a suit for injunction in which ad interim injunction was sought restraining the Petitioner and other Defendants from holding election through the Union. The ad -interim injunction was declined by the trial Court against which Mahala Ram Respondent preferred an appeal, in which the Petitioner was yet to be served when one R.K. Sharma Advocate appeared on his behalf The statement on behalf of Mahala Ram Respondent was recorded to the effect that fresh election be held in terms of certain conditions reproduced in the order under the Presidentship of Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner It was further agreed that in terms of the said compromise, Mahala Ram shall get his application for setting aside the ex -parte order against him, dismissed as withdrawn in Suit No. 908 Dalbir Singh v. Mahala Ram etc. and the Respondent further agreed to withdraw his suit in view of the terms of the compromise arrived at and had also withdrawn his appeal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner never agreed for the compromise nor authorised Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate to enter into any compromise on his behalf nor he instructed him to appear on his behalf. No agreement had been entered as envisaged under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure Consequently, the impugned order is bad.

(3.) I have been taken through the order wherein is has been categorically reproduced that the parties agreed to get the suit dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the compromise which will clearly amount to adjustment of the suit. Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure categorically lays down that a compromise in a suit can be got recorded and the Court can act on it only if it is in writing and signed by the parties Thus this suit could be got adjusted or any decree in terms and in accordance with the compromise could have been passed only if the compromise was in writing and signed by the parties. Admittedly, the decree was sought to be passed in the suit in terms of the compromise recorded in an appeal that was pending against the ad interim order The order itself is the disposal of the suit in terms of the compromise. Since no compromise has been recorded in writing and signed by the parties, I am fully satisfied that Order 23 Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure in turn, shall apply and that being mandatory and the object being only that the parties may not deny it subsequently, the same having not been complied with, the order cannot be sustained and the compromise cannot be acted upon by the Courts below. The above observation of mine are squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chaturbhuj Goel : A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 400.