NARAYAN DASS Vs. RADHA SWAMI SATSANG BEAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff for setting aside judgment dated 31.12.2013, whereby learned Sub Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu 'disposed of as compromised' the civil suit filed by him against the respondent and directed drawing of the decree sheet in terms of the compromise deed. Heard. I have perused the record.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision petition, briefly, are that in the suit filed by him the petitioner/plaintiff had sought declaration that the will -deed executed on 13.11.1992 and registered on 30.11.1992 allegedly by his father, Bhula Ram, in regard to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 296 (9 kanals 3 marlas) and 297 (10 marlas) in favour of the respondent is null and void with consequential relief restraining defendant from interfering into his peaceful possession of the said land. Petitioner questioned the legality of the will -deed and sought it to be declared as null and void mainly on the grounds that the same was got executed by the defendant by misrepresentation and in deceitful manner from his father who was devotee of Radha Swami Sect and that his father Bhulla Ram, who was a displaced person of 1947, had been granted occupancy rights of the said land under section 3 -A of Agrarian Reforms Act and no Will in respect of such rights could have been executed. Respondent/defendant contested petitioner's suit on various grounds and issues were framed by the trial court. However, file of the case came to be taken up in presence of counsel for the parties on 31.12.2013 by preponing the date of hearing on an application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff accompanied with a compromise agreement executed by the parties. As per this agreement the respondent gave possession of two kanals of land out of khasra No. 296 min to the petitioner in lieu of withdrawing the said suit and another suit filed by him. The petitioner agreed to withdraw both the suits and not to file any litigation in future. The learned trial court after recording statements of the parties passed the impugned judgment disposing of the suit as compromised and directing drawing of the decree sheet on the basis of a deed of compromise produced by the parties. The brief judgment recorded by the learned trial court on 31.12.2013 reads:

(3.) PER contra, Mr. S.S. Lehar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent vehemently questioned the maintainability of this revision petition contending that an order recording or refusing to record a compromise under Order 23 Rule (3) CPC is appealable under Order 43 Rule Km) and therefore, revision is not competent. Mr. Lehar relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sita Kour and Anr. v. Aman Ullah,, 1977 JKLR 279 : JKJ Soft JKJ/8132. In this relation, Mr. P.N. Raina, however, pointed out and rightly so that clause (m) of Order 43 Rule (1) CPC stands omitted by amendment Act XI of 1983 w.e.f. 15.8.1983. Besides, Mr. Lehar submitted that petitioner is a beneficiary under the compromise agreement and cannot be permitted to assail the same by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. While reading the deed of compromise, Mr. Lehar sought to point out that by virtue of the compromise agreement, petitioner/plaintiff has agreed to withdraw and had withdrawn the suit and having done so, he cannot be permitted to reopen the issue as it is simple situation of withdrawing the suit and any effort to reopen the same is barred under Rue 3A of order 23 CPC.