Ramesh K. Chadha vs Dr. Suresh Kumar Chadha and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 18554-CII of 2013:

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of one day in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Main Case:

Plaintiff Ramesh K. Chadha has filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short - CPC) assailing order dated 25.05.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned trial court, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs suit as withdrawn.

Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, by placing on record compromise deed (Annexure P-2) in the trial court, made statement that in view of compromise, the plaintiff did not want to pursue the suit and was withdrawing the same. In view thereof, the trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), dismissed the plaintiffs suit as withdrawn. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

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

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the trial court was required to record the compromise (Annexure P-2) and to pass the decree accordingly. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, .

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Counsel for the petitioner himself made statement for withdrawing suit and not for recording compromise and passing decree in terms of the compromise. Consequently, in view of statement made by counsel for the plaintiff himself, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit as withdrawn. If the plaintiff had made request for recording the compromise, and for deciding the suit in terms of compromise, only then the Court could have called upon the opposite party to respond to the said request and thereupon, appropriate order could have been passed on the basis of compromise. Merely on the statement of counsel for the plaintiff, the suit could not be disposed of in terms of compromise, unless agreed to by the opposite counsel. In the instant case, no request for recording the compromise and deciding the suit in terms thereof was even made on behalf of the plaintiff before the trial court. Therefore, the question of deciding the suit in terms of compromise did not arise. At this stage, it would also be relevant to mention that compromise (Annexure P-2) does not even purport to have been effected with all the defendants/respondents. It purports to have been effected with defendant-respondent no. 1 only. For this reason also, the suit could not be decided or decreed in terms of compromise.

The instant revision petition is not only meritless but is completely frivolous. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn, as per statement made by counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner himself. Consequently, the petitioner can raise no grievance against the impugned order. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC. The revision petition, being frivolous, deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs to curb such frivolous litigation. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court. If the cost amount is not deposited within one month from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose.