Jagrup Singh vs Bant Kaur alias Jaswant Kaur

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sub Judge I Class, Barnala, dated 6.9.1994, refusing to record the compromise in the suit No. 816 of 9.10.1989.

The respondent Bant Kaur filed a suit against Jagrup Singh and others for declaration that she is owner of the property to the extent of 1/8th share and that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 373 of 1985, is void and obtained by playing a fraud on the Court by impersonating her. During the pendency of the suit filed by Bant Kaur, the first defendant filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. for recording a compromise. That application has been dismissed by the trial Court in the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

The trial Court, while dismissing the application, mainly relied on the fact that the compromise dated 13.5.1992, and when the matter was adjourned to 21.5.1992 for evidence of the plaintiff, a representation was made to the Court seeking adjournment that negotiation for compromise was going on. On that representation, the suit was adjourned to 26.5.1992. That itself shows that there was no compromise in writing on 13.5.1992. It is the case of Bant Kaur that she purchased the share of Jagrup Singh and Harpal Singh on 13.5.1992 and in that connection her thumb impressions were obtained on that day and no compromise of the suit was effected on that day. The evidence of the Advocate Shri Sohan Lal also shows that the compromise was not read over to Bant Kaur. There is no evidence that Bant Kaur agreed for the compromise and after knowing the contents of the compromise dated 13.5.1992, she affixed her thumb impressions. Further, admittedly, a case was registered on a complaint given by Bant Kaur against Jagrup Singh and Harpal Singh for the offences under Sections 468/419/420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The compromise also shows that Bant Kaur agreed not to proceed with the criminal case and to withdraw the same. But as observed by the trial Court, the offences for which a complaint was made by Bant Kaur against Harpal Singh and Jagrup Singh were not compoundable without the permission of the Court. It does not appear that any application was made in the criminal Court for permission of withdrawal of the case.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the order of the trial Court. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.