Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 363 (JHR)

Meera Devi v. Birendra Prasad Bhagat

2013-03-12

P.P.BHATT

body2013
JUDGMENT When interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2986 of 2012 is taken up, request has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties to take up the main petition for final disposal. 2. Petitioners, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.9.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Daltonganj, Palamau, in Title Suit No. 28/97, whereby the learned court-below did not record the compromise entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9/ respondent No.11 herein and has rejected the petition dated 21.8.2009, filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners for recording statement of the parties to the compromise entered on 20.7.2009. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents and perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record. 4. It appears that plaintiffs have instituted title suit in the year 1997 and thereafter the suit could not be proceeded on account of the conduct, which has been mentioned/ reflected in the order passed by the court-below. It further appears that requisite court fees has been deposited by the plaintiffs in the year 2012 and thereafter the matter was kept for the purpose of framing of issues and at this particular stage, an application was submitted by the plaintiffs for recording of compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 as also for taking oral evidence of plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 with regard to contents of the compromise. Learned court-below after recording the conduct of the plaintiffs as also on examination of the facts of the case reached to the conclusion that compromise arrived at and entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 cannot be recorded at this juncture and it can be recorded only after framing of issues so that the contents of the compromise can be properly verified at the time of recording of evidence. Looking to the nature of the suit, it appears that the view taken by the learned court-below is in accordance with law because no court can be compelled to record the compromise entered into between the parties unless the court has satisfaction about the contents of the compromise. 5. Looking to the nature of the suit, it appears that the view taken by the learned court-below is in accordance with law because no court can be compelled to record the compromise entered into between the parties unless the court has satisfaction about the contents of the compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring Order-23 Rule-3 of the CPC pointed out that the provisions contained in this Order is very clear that the court-below is duty bound to accept or refuse the compromise submitted by the parties and put it on record. On perusal of the order passed by the court-below, it appears that after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned court-below has passed the order of refusal at this juncture with regard to compromise entered into between the parties; however, at the same point of time, the learned court-below made it very clear that the compromise can be recorded after examination of defendant No.9. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the following judgments: (i) AIR 1955 Patna 243; (ii) AIR 1969 Guj. 76 ; (iii) AIR 2000 SC 2757 . 7. In support of his case, while referring AIR 1955 Patna 243, submitted that present case is squarely covered by the said decision and accordingly, learned court-below has no discretion but to accept the compromise or reject the compromise. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the other above- referred two judgments, in support of this case, has also submitted that ratio laid down in the aforesaid two judgments is also applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent No.11 (defendant No.9) submitted that the order passed by the learned court-below is not in accordance with law and compromise, which has been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9, is required to be recorded upon the request made by both the parties. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the court-below has passed the order after careful consideration of the facts and contention of the plaintiffs/ petitioners. 11. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the court-below has passed the order after careful consideration of the facts and contention of the plaintiffs/ petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the ratio laid down in the judgments, which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are different than the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in this context, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has pointed out certain vital facts of this case wherein the compromise, which has been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9, may have affect on rights of the other defendants. 12. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions, it appears that the view taken by the learned court-below regarding non-acceptance of the compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 at this juncture appears to be just and proper, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as provision as contained in Order-23 Rule-3 of the CPC is concerned, the satisfaction of the court in respect of compromise arrived at between the parties is the essence of the said provision and therefore, without proper satisfaction of the court-below, no compromise can be recorded and given affect. Present case relates to title and the other defendants are also contesting the said suit and therefore, the rights of the parties in respect of property in question has to be considered and crystallized after recording of the evidence and therefore, without framing of issues in the suit, in my opinion, it cannot be just and proper for any of the parties to insist upon the court to record the compromise when all the parties are not in agreement to the said compromise. In the light of the above position, the judgments, which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. 14. Consequently, I.A. No. 2986 of 2012 also stand disposed of. 15. In the light of the above position, the judgments, which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. 14. Consequently, I.A. No. 2986 of 2012 also stand disposed of. 15. Suit is of the year 1997 and therefore, it being an old suit, court-below shall make its sincere endeavour for expeditious disposal of the suit and shall dispose of the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.