iqjksfgr] lnL;-&;g fuxjkuh /kkjk 230 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼la{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e*½ ds vUrxZr mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tSrkj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 17-9-2001 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- izdj.k ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd orZeku vizkFkhZx.k us ,d okn vUrxZr /kkjk 88] 188 ,oa 92, ^^vf/kfu;e** ckcr~ ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izfroknh@izkFkhZ ds fo:) lgk;d dysDVj] tSrkj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;kA 3- lgk;d dysDVj ds ;gkW jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij nkok fnukad 8-12-87 dks fMØh fd;k x;kA mlds ckn orZeku izkFkhZ us vius [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe fnukad 1-2-98 dks ykykjke] jruyky] iUukyky dks jftLVMZ foØ; i= }kjk cspku dj nh ftl ij vizkFkhZx.k us lgk;d dysDVj] tSrkj.k ds ;gka lh-ih-lh- ds vkns'k 23 fu;e 3 ,oa /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k fd jkthukesa esa Li"V vafdr gS fd tc Hkh izfroknh mlds fgLls esa vkbZ Hkwfe dk cspku djsxk rks izFke gd oknhx.k dk gksxkA izLrqr izfroknh us mä 'krZ dk mYya?ku dj Hkwfe vU; dks cspku dj nh gSA blfy;s fMØh fnukad 16-9-87 fujLr dh tkosA lgk;d dysDVj] tSrkj.k us mä izkFkZuk i= ij lquokbZ dj vius fu.kZ; fnukad 13-9-91 }kjk mä izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj dj fMØh fn- 8-12-87 dks fujLr dj nkos dks iqu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k ftlls vlarq"V gksdj izkFkhZ }kjk ;g fuxjkuh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 4- izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk rdZ gS fd jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fMØh ls vlarq"V gksus ij vizkFkhZ vihy izLrqr dj ldrk Fkk ;k utjlkuh izLrqr dj ldrk Fkk ysfdu lh-ih-lh- ds vkns'k 23 fu;e 3 ds rgr fMØh dks fujLr djus dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fof/k fo:) gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd dk'r dh Hkwfe ds ckcr~ ^gd'kQk* dk fl)kUr ykxw gh ugha gksrk gS] blfy;s Hkh ,slk ikcUnh dk dkuwuh egRo ugha gSA 5- vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk rdZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us muds lh-ih-lh- ds vkWMZj 23 :y 3 ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djus esa dksbZ dkuwuh xyrh ugha dh gS D;ksafd jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fMØh esa ;g 'krZ Fkh fd orZeku izkFkhZ ;fn Hkwfe dk cspku djsxk rks vizkFkhZx.k dks gh djsxk vkSj izkFkhZ us mä 'krZ dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA 6- geusa nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koäkvksa ds rdZ lqusA mu ij euu fd;k rFkk fuxjkuh/khu vkns'k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- izLrqr izdj.k esa ;g rF; fookfnr ugha gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fMØh fnukad 16-9-87 jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr dh xbZ gSA ;g Hkh fookfnr ugha gS fd mä jkthukesa esa Hkwfe vizkFkhZx.k dks cs[ku djus esa 'krZ Fkh ftldk mYya?ku gqvk gSA vc iz'u ;g gS fd orZeku vizkFkhZx.k dks D;k dkuwuh mipkj miyC/k Fks\ blds fy;s lh-ih-lh- ds vkWMZj 23 :y 3 ds izko/kkuksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] tks bl izdkj gS %& "O. 23 R. 3" Compromise of suit — Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit]; [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at the Court shall decide the questin; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.] [Explanation.—An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.] ;ksX; fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vizkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djus dk ;g vk/kkj crk;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe dks izfroknh }kjk cspus dh lwjr esa ekfQd cktk: dher izFke vf/kdkj oknh dk gksus dh 'krZ gS rFkk Hkwfe fdlh vU; dks cspus ls mDr 'krZ dk mYya?ku gqvk gSA ysfdu D;k ,slh lwjr esa lh-ih-lh- ds vkns'k 23 :y 3 ds izko/kku ykxw gksaxs\ bl lEcU/k esa 2004 Mh-,u-ts- ¼,l-lh-½ 53 ij ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ^^ftus'ojnkl ¼e`rd½ tfj;s dk;e eqdke o vU; cuke Jherh txjkuh oxSjk** esa tks fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS] og bl izdkj gS%& "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 —O. 23 R. 3 & Sec. 100 — Civil Procedure Code (As amended) Act, 1976 — Second appeal — Suit relating to specific performance of agreement — Second appeal disposed of as per mutual submission of the parties — Subsequent review application on the ground that provisions of O. 23 R. 3 were not followed — Review application rightly rejected — Judgment and decree passed in second appeal was based on mutual submission by the parties in the Court —Thus provisions of O. 23 R. 3 not attracted — No case for interference. Appeal dismissed." 2006 Mh-,u-ts- ¼,llh½ ist 58 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ^^vers'oj vkuan cuke ohjsUnz eksgu flag oxSjk** esa tks fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS] og bl izdkj gS %& "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Validity — Suit for partition of properties — Consent decree was passed — Consent decree was culmination of a proces of settlement which was recorded at three stages in three agreements — By the agreement parties had finally resolved disputes with regards to their share in suit properties — Non-payment by one of the parties — Held, Mere non-payment was not supportive of a ground for setting aside the decree on basis of an allegation of fraud — Appellants could execue the decree for monies due under compromise decree. Appeal dismissed." blh izdkj 2006 Mh-,u-ts- ¼,l-lh-½ ist 85 = vkj-,y-MCY;w- 2006¼1½ ,llh 628 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ^^,u-ds- jktxfM+;k cuke egkohj IykUVs'ku fy- oxSjk** esa tks fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS] og bl izdkj gS %& "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 23 Rules 3 & 4 — Consent decree — Respondent took advance of certain sum of money from appellant — A suit for recovery of Rs. 75 lakhs towards refund of said amount with interest and damages was filed by appellant — Parties arrived into compromise of terms where appellant was to receive a sum of Rs. 41,69,110/- — Plaintiff waived his remaining claim on premises that respondent had agreed to settle the disputes — Respondent applied for obtained extention of time — Single Judge of High Court extended the time to respondent for payment decreetal amount with interest — Appellant had accepted such amount and that order was not questioned — Whereas under original decree a sum of Rs. 41,69,110/- was payable in terms of consent order passed in execution case, a sum of Rs. 42,04,222/- became payable — Sum which was waived by did not form part of consent decree — Held, Plea of respondent being liable to pay said amount to appellant despite the fact that no decree in relation thereto was passed cannot be countenanced. 41,69,110/- was payable in terms of consent order passed in execution case, a sum of Rs. 42,04,222/- became payable — Sum which was waived by did not form part of consent decree — Held, Plea of respondent being liable to pay said amount to appellant despite the fact that no decree in relation thereto was passed cannot be countenanced. Appeal dismissed." 8- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr mä fofu'p;ksa esa ikfjr fl)karksa ,oa lh-ih-lh- ds vkWMZj 23 :y 3 ds izko/kkuksa ds ifjis{; esa bl izdj.k ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj ;g ik;kx;k fd mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tSrkj.k dk vkns'k fnukad 17-9-2001 fof/k fo:) gSA 9- mijksä foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i ;g fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkdj mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tSrkj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 17-9-2001 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh vizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Lora=rk jgsxh fd os jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fMØh esa jkthukesa dh 'krZ ds mYya?ku ds vk/kkj ij fMØh dks l{ke U;k;ky; esa fof/k vuq:i pqukSrh nsus dks Lora= jgsaxs lkFk gh vizkFkhZx.k ;fn pkgsa] rks jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fMØh dh 'krZ ds mYya?ku esa fd;s x;s cspku dks Hkh l{ke U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh nsus dks Lora= jgsaxsA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA