Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 372 (UTT)

GAURI SHANKAR SINGHAL v. RAJPAL SINGH

2015-07-28

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Mr. Gauri Shankar Singhal, petitioner, is present in person. He has desired to argue this case in person. 2. Permitted. 3. Present petition is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Civil Revision No. 19 of 2015, whereby matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the question of genuineness and legality of the alleged compromise between the parties in the light of principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. afresh. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff-respondent no. 1, herein, has filed Suit No. 583 of 1998 initially in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun against the defendant for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction to declare that the defendants are not the owner of the property in question and defendants may be restrained in making any interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in question. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff has moved one application, paper no. 207-C before the Trial Court on 28.03.2014 stating therein that matter has been settled between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1, which has been duly signed by the power of attorney holder of the defendant no. 1, therefore, degree may be passed in terms of the compromise; having acquired knowledge about the application for decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise, petitioner/defendant no. 1 has filed his reply to the application to the effect that alleged compromise was never arrived at between the parties and power of attorney holder of the defendant no. 1 had absolutely no power or authority to settle the matter without there being any instructions from the defendant no. 1, therefore, alleged compromise may be rejected; learned Trial Court, in view of the objections being raised by the defendant no. 1, was pleased to reject the application-paper no. 207-C vide order dated 20.1.2015; Order dated 20.1.2015 was assailed in Civil Revision No. 19 of 015; revision, so filed by the plaintiff, was allowed vide impugned order dated 28.05.2015. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. 1, was pleased to reject the application-paper no. 207-C vide order dated 20.1.2015; Order dated 20.1.2015 was assailed in Civil Revision No. 19 of 015; revision, so filed by the plaintiff, was allowed vide impugned order dated 28.05.2015. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Gauri Shankar Singhal, petitioner present in person has vehemently argued that since compromise, in question, does not contain his signature and his power of attorney holder was not competent to enter into the compromise, therefore, Trial Court was perfectly well within its jurisdiction while rejecting the compromise. 6. Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. reads as under: “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 than an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the court shall decide the question; 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 avoidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.]” 7. The plain language of Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. would make it clear that if one party of the suit alleges that the matter has been settled and compromised and other party denies the same, Court shall decide the question as to whether, in fact, any settlement/compromise took place between the parties. 8. In the present case, learned Trial Court has not decided this question and has refused to record the compromise only on the objection of the petitioner/defendant no. 8. In the present case, learned Trial Court has not decided this question and has refused to record the compromise only on the objection of the petitioner/defendant no. 1, therefore, Revisional Court was perfectly well within its jurisdiction while remanding the matter to the Trial Court under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. to find out as to whether in fact any compromise was arrived at between the parties or not. Consequently, I do not find any fault with the impugned judgment. 9. Writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, it is clarified that to arrive at finding as to whether compromise has arrived at between the parties or not, learned Trial Court may allow both the parties to lead such evidence as parties wish to lead. 11. Learned Trial Court is requested not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Learned Trial Court may grant adjournment only when learned Trial Court is satisfied that situations are beyond the control of the party seeking adjournment. 12. CLMA No. 7808 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.