IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6509 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 03, 2011 Parbhu and another .. Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat Rattan Garh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari in Civil Appeal No.49 of 2006 titled as Parbhu and another vs. Gram Panchayat Rattan Garh and others, vide which the court had accepted the application of the respondents No.2 and 3 for setting aside the compromise entered into between the parties and to adjourn the case for arguments. The facts in the back ground of the case are that there were three khasra numbers of three marla each situated in village Rattan Garh which was allotted to three non-proprietors of the village by the Gram Panchayat on 11.2.1981. However, some time thereafter the petitioners took the forcible possession of the aforesaid plots from which litigation emanated and was decided in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. The case was decided in favour of respondent No.2 on 12.3.2003 and in favour of respondent No.3 on 3.8.2000. Similarly, Vidya Devi also filed suit seeking possession of her bara from the petitioners which was decided on 22.4.2003. However, still aggrieved, the petitioners again started litigation on the basis of the adverse possession which also did not find favour with the petitioners and came to an end on 17.4.2006 before the trial court. During the course of the appeal, Sardari Devi wife of Suraj Bhan lodged an FIR No.94 dated 25.5.2006 against the respondents under Sections 323/325/448/34 IPC. Contemporaneously, a compromise (Ex.CX) purported to have been entered into by respondents No.2 and 3 on Civil Revision No. 6509 of 2009 -2- *** 2.6.2006. However, before the compromise was accepted by the court, the petitioners moved an application for not accepting the compromise on the ground that they were not represented by their counsel but a new counsel viz Shri S.P. Panwar Advocate had been introduced. The compromise was the result of terror and the pressure built upon them. The FIR No. 94 dated 25.5.2006 under Sections 323/325/448/34 IPC was forcibly lodged against them to built a pressure upon them so that they may relinquish their rights in the building regarding which they had decrees in their favour and they were threatened that if they would not compromise and relinquish their rights in their favour, then they would have to face dire consequences. With the aforesaid observations as well as while recording other circumstances, they prayed for deciding the appeal on merits. This application was contested by the petitioners and ultimately the appellate court accepted the application and allowed the respondents to withdraw the compromise and listed the case for arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no denying a fact that though the parties had filed a compromise in the court, but the court had still not applied its mind to the compromise Ex.CX for determining its validity and legality as was required under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC. The facts reveal that the compromise was not presented by the regular counsel who was appearing on behalf of the respondents to defend the appeal. It is also well settled by now that the compromise, if not accepted by the court, could be withdrawn and the court is concerned to examine the legality of the judgment. The plaintiff was at liberty to withdraw from the compromise as well as from the statement before the decision of the appeal made before the court. Similar observations were made by this Court in case Mange Ram v. Sube Singh and others, 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 0688 wherein it was observed as under :- “2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance or the agreement dated 12.9.2002. In the said suit, the parties entered into compromise, whereby on 1.6.2004 the plaintiff made a statement to withdraw the suit as Civil Revision No. 6509 of 2009 -3- *** compromised, but before the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn, the plaintiff moved an application to decide the suit on merits. But the learned trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn in terms of the statement made in the dated 1.6.2004, although before the said date, the plaintiff has moved an application to withdraw the aforesaid statement. Since the plaintiff has withdrawn statement before dated 1.6.2004 before the decision of the suit, the learned trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit as withdrawn on 22.1.2005. The said order is thus, not sustainable in law. The plaintiff cannot be forced to withdraw the suit before the decree in terms of the said statement could be passed by the learned trial court.” In view of the matter, there is no merit in the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Dismissed. May 03, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge