Jodh Singh vs Sohan Singh and another

L.N. Mittal, J.—By way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Jodh Singh has impugned order dated 02.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) moved by plaintiff-petitioner under Order 23 Rule 1 (Order 23 Rule 3 ?) of the CPC (in short - CPC) for deciding the suit as per terms of compromise contained in statement dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-1), made by the plaintiff along with his counsel and by counsel for contesting defendant-respondent no.2.

In the suit, plaintiff has claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit land measuring 07 kanals 16 marlas. The plaintiff has challenged gift deed dated 28.11.2000 of the suit land and other land executed by defendant-respondent no.1 Sohan Singh in favour of defendant-respondent no.2 Gurudwara alleging that defendant no.1 was not competent to execute any conveyance deed qua the suit land having no right, title or interest therein. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that he is in actual possession of the suit land, whereas defendant no.1 was in possession of land of other khasra numbers, which fell to his share, but in the gift deed, khasra numbers of suit land were inadvertently written on account of wrong jamabandi.

On 26.02.2010, on the suggestion of the trial court, parties came to some sort of understanding, for which statement (Annexure P-1) was recorded. The said statement is reproduced hereunder :

For the purpose of settlement, as suggested by the court, we have no objection, if the property in possession of Jodh Singh where he is claiming declaration on the basis of his possession, is demarcated to ascertain the actual khasra numbers and the property in which the defendant no.2 got from Sohan Singh under gift deed to ascertain the actual number of that parcel of property, Local Commissioner be appointed who will determine the khasra numbers in possession of respective parties and we have further no objection, if the demarcation is conducted under the supervision of some Advocate.

Plaintiff alleged in the application (Annexure P-4) that pursuant to aforesaid settlement between the parties, demarcation was made at the spot and plaintiff has been found in actual possession of the suit land and consequently, the suit be decided as per demarcation report.

Defendant no.2 opposed the aforesaid application alleging that no compromise was arrived at between the parties and the application has been moved just to delay the proceedings. It was also alleged that the dispute was not only regarding possession, but also regarding ownership. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-6), dismissed the plaintiff''s application. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that on intervention of the trial court, the parties have arrived at settlement, as contained in statement (Annexure P-1), and therefore, the suit is required to be disposed of according to the said settlement and consequent demarcation report.

I have carefully considered the contention, which, on first blush, appears to be attractive, but on proper scrutiny of statement (Annexure P-1), the contention cannot be accepted.

Statement (Annexure P-1) has been reproduced herein before. Perusal thereof reveals that settlement between the parties was only regarding demarcation and not regarding fate or final decision of the suit. Nothing has been mentioned in the aforesaid statement regarding fate of the suit pursuant to demarcation. On the contrary, the parties stated that they had no objection if demarcation is made for the purpose of settlement. It would depict that after demarcation, the parties could make effort for settlement on the basis of demarcation report. However, statement (Annexure P-1) itself is not final settlement, compromise or adjustment of the suit within the meaning of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. On the basis of statement (Annexure P-1), the suit cannot be disposed of finally as the said statement contains no compromise regarding final decision of the suit. In fact, the plaintiff also very well knew this factual situation and that is why, the plaintiff continued to pursue the suit on merits, even after demarcation report was obtained and moved application (Annexure P-4) only when the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence and final arguments, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff did not seek disposal of the suit in terms of alleged compromise immediately on receipt of demarcation report dated 27.03.2010 (Annexure P-3), but moved application (Annexure P-4) on 14.06.2011 i.e. after 15 months of the demarcation and when the suit was at the stage of final disposal by way of adjudication.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application (Annexure P-4) moved by the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.