SH. FATEH SINGH Vs. SH. TOHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's petition against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), dismissing the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter C.P.C.) praying that the suit has been compromised and may be disposed of as such. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession on the pleadings that she is a poor illiterate lady. The defendant was a social worker asked her for the grant of no objection in order to get some kind of clearance for a road to be built through her land. When she refused after consultation with her sons, the defendant held out that she would be adequately compensated. In order to achieve this, he took the plaintiff to the Tehsil office Kandaghat where he informed her that formalities for grant of compensation etc. would be completed. She was asked to put her thumb impression on some papers and was assured by him that these documents have been prepared for this purpose only. On 6.10.2003 when Ram Rattan son of the plaintiff was in Patwar Circle, Satrol, he was shocked to know that mutation with respect to the suit land has been sanctioned in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff claims to have been cheated/defrauded and the entire transaction as the outcome of mis-representation. She pleaded that she was kept in the dark and her son Asha Ram is also an illiterate person. Sale deed with respect this suit land was registered with the Sub Registrar, Kandaghat on 19.9.2003. He was requested to cancel the sale deed but did not do so leaving the plaintiff no option but to file the present suit. These allegations have been denied. For the purposes of the present suit, it is only the application under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. which is being considered by me and no observation has been made on the merits of the respective case of the parties.

(2.) Application dated 6.4.2004 under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. signed by the plaintiff, defendant and their Counsel was submitted before the learned Court in which it was pleaded that with the intervention of some well wishers and relatives etc. the parties to the suit had sorted out all differences. Application recites that the plaintiff had executed the sale deed of her own free will and volition. The plaintiff accepted the sale of 3 bighas of land along with structure standing thereon and admitted the possession of the defendant. She also accepted the receipt of full consideration for the sale transaction.

(3.) This application was resisted by the plaintiff who alleged that she never entered into any compromise of her free will. The only purpose of filing the compromise was to grab the property of the plaintiff by hook or by crook. It was pleaded that the application contains half truths and contorted facts. Most important of all, it is pleaded that her Counsel was not contacted/consulted neither she was given any opportunity to do so in order to understand the true purport and meaning of the application. Some other Counsel was engaged so as to conceal true facts and to rush to the compromise against her interest. She has no knowledge of the compromise and the document/application filed in Court is the outcome of fraud and mis-representation. These allegations have been denied in the reply which has been filed.