Baldev Singh vs Mohan Lal and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11.11.2008 which reads as follows:

The ld. Counsel for the defendant has filed reply to the application Under Order 23, Rule 3, CPC whereby he has denied that the aforesaid agreement was not acted upon. Hence the evidence is required to prove to the execution of the aforesaid agreement. Hence, the application be kept pending to be decided after the completion of evidence of both the parties. Be listed for PWs. on taking steps within 7 days. Put up on 19.12.2008.

In my considered view, this petition is totally misconceived. According to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, the matter was compromised between the parties and the compromise was reduced into writing and signed by the parties. Further according to the plaintiff, the defendants satisfied the plaintiff in respect of subject matter of the suit and agreed that they admitted the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land in village Kheri-Bannar and Lana-Cheta to the extent of 1/8 share of the suit property. The further averment in this application was that the defendant Ramanand would pay Rs. 12,000/- to the plaintiff.

It is very important to note that the agreement as such was not filed in Court. Only an application was filed that such agreement had been entered into between the parties.

Reply to this application was filed only by defendant No. 1, Mohan Lal and he stated that a document had been prepared between the parties to compromise the matter in controversy which was the subject matter of the suit but the same was not finally admitted and accepted by the parties and this document had to be given effect only after the consent of the other parties to the suit was obtained since the said document had been prepared in the absence of defendants Prithy Raj, Smt. Prem Devi, Lata Devi and Smt. Her Devi.

In this petition, it is prayed that the suit should have been disposed of in terms of the compromise. The compromise, if any, arrived at between the parties has not been accepted by all the defendants. Without the agreement being on record, it cannot be said that it has been signed by all the defendants or not and if it has been signed by any defendants who are the defendants who have been signed the same.

The application, therefore, should in fact, have been rejected by the learned Trial Court instead of being kept pending. Other than that, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.