AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This is a defendants'' revision petition aggrieved by the order of the XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore rejecting the application filed under O 23 R 3(a) r/w S. 151, CPC in OS 7435/2012. There appears to be a transaction between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent who are both advocates. In connection with dealing a property, the 3rd respondent is shown to have invested amount with the petitioner amounting to Rs. 51 lakhs i.e., Rs. 8 lakhs by cash and Rs. 40 lakhs by way of cheques. However, it is pleaded by the 3rd respondent that the amount which they have obtained in dealing with immovable property is sought to be invested on the request of the petitioners. In view of the submission of the petitioners counsel that there was series of communication and understanding between the parties in connection with payment of amount, as the negotiations failed, matter was sought to be settled in the Bar Association amidst several advocates and thereafter, compromise petition was filed before the civil court in the suit filed for recovery. In that, there are terms to return the amount in favour of the 3rd respondent, by the petitioners. The said compromise is entered into during October 2012. Thereafter, in the suit so filed by the petitioner herein before the civil court in OS 7435/2012, application came to be filed during July 2013 seeking for recalling the compromise entered into as per O 23 R 3, CPC. The trial court rejected the application as not maintainable. Hence, this revision petition.
Heard the counsel representing the parties.
Counsel representing the petitioners referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya Vs. Rajendra Rajak and Others, contended that the high court without giving notice to the other side had allowed the CRP. The parties approached the Supreme Court by way of review and the Apex Court has observed, the purpose of following the principles of natural justice is prevention for miscarriage of natural justice. Accordingly, it is contended that there is settlement/compromise petition filed before the trial court which was under threat or coercion and there is no fairness in this settlement as such, the order passed by the trial court on the application filed for recalling the compromise application is without hearing and without inquiry and thus, sought for setting aside the said order.
Counsel for the respondents submitted, the very conduct of the petitioner itself demonstrates that having entered into compromise during October 2012 after lapse of nearly 8 to 9 months he has approached the trial court by filing an application for recalling the compromise and also after hearing this applicant/petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the trial court on 21.8.2013 which is under challenge.
So far as compromise entered into between the parties is concerned, it is in connection with payment of money through cheques. According to the counsel representing the 3rd respondent, about Rs. 43 lacs is said to be paid through cheques and Rs. 8 lacs through cash. Also, what is submitted is compromise is entered into between the parties at the intervention of some of the members of the Bar and that compromise entered into was sought to be annulled by filing an application during July, 2013 and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. There was no necessity to hold any inquiry by the civil court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
In reply, petitioners counsel submitted, when the petitioner was arrested, at the instance of two ladies there was assurance that in order to get him released such compromise was entered into and accordingly, the terms of compromise were not exercised and therefore, sought for holding an inquiry.
It is the submission of the counsel for respondents, having observed the conduct of the 1st petitioner, even the bail application filed by him came to be rejected by the Supreme Court. That itself demonstrates that petitioner is not fair in his deal. It is submitted by the petitioners counsel that there was a review application filed pending before the civil court.
So far as recalling the compromise petition filed under O 23 R 3, CPC, firstly, the conditions i.e., misrepresentation, fraud, threat, mistake or coercion has to be demonstrated and that would be a ground to interfere. Secondly, the petitioner is an advocate so also the 3rd respondent. The compromise is entered into in the Bar Association in the presence of some of the advocates. Neither the petitioner nor the members of the Bar Association were ignorant or illiterate. Nothing has been demonstrated to show that there was coercion and the stand now taken by the petitioner at a belated stage i.e., after 7 - 8 months of entering into compromise is unacceptable. Though an inquiry has not been ordered, ultimately sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before the trial court before rejecting his application. What is canvassed by the Apex Court with regard to following principles of natural justice is that before passing any order, parties should be heard in the matter and should be put on notice. In the case on hand, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court has been duly complied. When after negotiations, parties have entered into compromise in the presence of the Members of the Bar, it is obnoxious to say that there is misrepresentation or fraud is played on the petitioner. No interference is called for in the order passed by the trial court. Petition is dismissed.