BASUDEO MISIR Vs. MTPAUDHARO KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out a suit in which the petitioner was plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were a pardanashin lady and her son respectively. A petition of compromise was filed on 13 February and accepted by the Court two days later. The decree was, drawn up on 20 February. On 23 the lady filed an application denying that she had assented to the compromise and further alleging that an intoxicant had been administered to her son, defendant 2, who was addicted to ganja. The learned Munsif heard the parties, recalled his orders accepting the compromise and called upon the parties to proceed with the case. He found that there had not even been a proposal to the lady, much less an actual compromise, that "a secret march had been stolen upon her" and fraud practised on the Court, and that she never gave any authority to the pleader who on the day when the petition was filed, was suddenly asked to sign the compromise petition.

(2.) An appeal was preferred against this order which the learned District Judge held to be incompetent as the order had been passed under Section 151 in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In revision substantially two points have been taken, first, that an appeal lay under Order 43, Rule 1 Clauses (m) and (w), inasmuch as the order of the Munsif was one refusing to record a compromise or one allowing a review of judgment; and secondly, that if it be not so, and Section 151 be called into operation in spite of the specific remedies available to defendant 1, nevertheless the jurisdiction exercised under Section 151 was analogous to that exercisable under Order 23, Rule 3 and so the order passed was subject to appeal.

(3.) It is urged that the substance rather than the form is to be considered and reference is made to the decision in Sadho Saran Rai V/s. Anant Rai AIR 1923 Pat 483. Now on reading the order of the learned Munsif, it is perfectly clear that on the facts found, which there seems no reason to doubt, this Court ought not to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless very strong considerations indeed and in particular considerations of law constrain it to interfere. There can be no doubt that there never was a lawful compromise of any kind and indeed the attention of the learned Munsif may well be directed to the conduct of the mukhtar and the pleader which he has rightly stigmatised in strong terms.