High CourtsSingle Bench(1995) 07 MAD CK 0020

Palanisami and Others vs Executive Officer and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 July 1995 · Citation: (1995) 2 CTC 438

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rengasamy, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. No. 284 of 1994

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 371 words

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is against the order of the learned District Munsif, Palani, refusing to record the compromise in I.A. No. 240

of 1993 in O.S. No. 66 of 1992 for the reason that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in their representative capacity and though the compromise

has been signed by the plaintiffs, who are representing the villages, as all the villagers are not parties to the compromise, the same could not be

recorded.

2.

The learned counsel Mr. P. Kulandaivadivelu representing the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that it is not possible to obtain the

signature from each and every villager, when especially the plaintiffs are representing the entire villagers, but the correct procedure for recording the

compromise in the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is that, the publications has to be effected with regard to the terms of the

compromise between the parties and in this case without resorting to that procedure the dismissal of the petition to record compromise is law No

doubt under Order 23 Rule 3 R of the Civil Procedure Code, the compromise has to be entered into with the leave of the court, the court after

taking into consideration of the representation of the villagers can consider the question of granting leave. For this purpose, the publication has to

be effected in the village with regard to the terms agreed between the parties Order 1 Rule 8 Sub-Rule (4) of the CPC makes it mandatory for the

notice to the persons interested in the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the learned District Munsif ought to have ordered for publication of the

terms of the compromise in the village, where all the parties are residing and thereafter take up the matter for consideration for granting leave in the

compromise petition. As this was not done, the order of the court below has to be set aside.

3.

In the result, the revision is allowed setting aside the order of the court below and the learned District Munsif is directed to order Publication of

the compromise in the village as required under Order 1 Rule 8 Sub-Rule (4) and also under Order 23 Rule 3B of the Civil Procedure Code.