Civil Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2010 Piara Singh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Warraich Traders and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional District, Amritsar, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for review of order dated 4.2.2009, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac and twenty thousand only) towards principal and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards interest. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac and twenty thousand only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner entered into Civil Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) -2- compromise with the plaintiff/respondents wherein he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) towards full and final settlement, to be paid in two instalments of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) each. First instalment was to paid on or before 15.5.2009 and the second on or before 16.11.2009. The learned lower appellate Court accepted the compromise and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise, by stipulating therein that in the event of failure of the petitioner to pay the agreed amount, the decree passed by learned trial Court would become enforceable. The petitioner after having failed to pay as per the compromise, moved an application for review of the order by claiming it to be outcome of fraud. The learned lower appellate Court did not find any ground for review, as the petitioner failed to prove the plea of fraud, and dismissed the review petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as by way of compromise no benefit was given to the petitioner, as the amount claimed was ordered to be decreed as per the compromise. This on the face of it proves, that the compromise was outcome of fraud, therefore, not sustainable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that no party would like to compromise, the matter to pay whole of the amount claimed and leave his right to contest the appeal on merits. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court would show that the suit was not Civil Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) -3- decreed for Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only), but the plaintiff/respondents were also granted pendente lite and furture interest @ 12% per annum. The amount under the decree was much more than Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only), therefore, by way of compromise the petitioner was given benefit. The plaintiff/respondents had to forego, the pendente lite and future interest. The fraud, therefore, could not be presumed as contended. The order passed by the learned appellate Court does not suffer from illegality which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 21, 2010 R.S.