SUMER Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial Court decreed the suit for pre-emption filed by the two plaintiffs against Chitru vendee and Sumer alleged lessee. Against the decree of the trial Court, they went up to appeal. Before the Additional District Judge, Chitru appellant and Vjjay Singh respondent with their respective counsel in that Court, made statements. Sumer appellant and Ram Singh respondent did not make any statement although on their behalf their respective counsel did make the statements. According to the statement of Vijay Singh, pre-emptor and counsel for the pre-emptors, the pre-emptor were to pay Rs. 19,000/- to Chitru vendee by 31st October, 1988 and Chitru was to harvest the crop by that date and thereafter the pre-emptors could take possession and the vendee could withdraw the deposited amount besides the pre-emption amount. In the statement made by Chitru vendee, apart from agreeing with the aforesaid statement it was mentioned that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. On the basis of this statement, the Additional District Judge passed the following order : Present:-Counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments, the parties have come to terms and their statements have separately been recorded. In view of the statements of the parties this appeal is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to records. " Against the aforesaid order, Chitru vendee and Sumer lessee have come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) SO far as Sumer is concerned, his case is that be is lessee on the land in dispute and whether suit for pre-emption is declared or not he will continue in possession as lessee under the successful party, and, since he was not party to compromise, the term of compromise that the possession can be taken after 31st October, 1988 cannot bind him Obviously, since he is not party to the compromise and even if it were to be considered that compromise has been legally arrived at between Chitru vendee and the pre-emptors,, his appeal before the lower Appellate Court had to be considered on merits to determine whether he was entitled to remain in possession inspite of the decree of pre-emption. To this extent the lower Appellate Court was in error in dismissing the entire appeal on the basis of statements to which Sumer was not party. Hence, the appeal of Sumer has to be decided on merits by the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) AS regards Chitru, he and his counsel had signed statement recorded by the Court containing terms of compromise. The question for determination would be whether statement made in writing before the Court would be sufficient compliance of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code), or the compromise should be reduced into writing in the form of an instrument signed by the parties. This matter was considered by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj, A I. R. 1958 S. C. 400. and the relevant discussion is in para 10 of the reported judgment. The relevant observations are these":