Civil Revision No. 3516 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3516 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.5.2011 *** Jainander Jain & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Smt. Shail Gupta & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr.K.R. Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners have filed the suit for declaration against the respondents, who are sisters of petitioners No.1 and 2 and daughters of petitioners No.3 and 4. A declaration was sought that petitioners No.1 and 2 are the owners of house Nos. 41-P and 142 respectively while petitioner No.3 is the sole owner of plot situated at Smadhi Road, Zira and petitioner No.4 is the owner of land measuring 37 kanals 05 marlas situated at Zira. They also sought the consequential relief of symbolic possession as owner of the aforesaid properties. According to them the said properties came to their share by virtue of an oral family settlement, but the defendants i.e. respondents herein resiled therefrom, necessitating them to file the aforesaid suit. During the proceedings, the matter was taken up by the Lok Adalat where the parties entered into a settlement. The said compromise was reduced into writing as Ex.CX. After recording the statements of the parties in respect of the compromise, the Lok Adalat ordered that the suit of Civil Revision No. 3516 of 2011 2 the plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of compromise Ex.CX, vide order dated 25.9.2010 and directed the parties to remain bound by their statements. The petitioners-plaintiffs then filed an application for amendment in the aforesaid order dated 25.9.2010 on the ground that instead of ordering the suit as dismissed as withdrawn, it should have been decreed, which was prayed for by the parties before the Lok Adalat. However, by virtue of impugned order dated 5.2.2011, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the instant revision petition has been filed. Heard. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the parties have compromised the matter and in this regard the statements have also been recorded in the Lok Adalat, but instead of treating the suit as dismissed being withdrawn, it ought to have been decreed by the learned trial Court. Now the said compromise is of no help to the parties since there is no decree and no execution could be filed against the aforesaid orderdated 25.9.2010 passed by the Lok Adalat. The crux of the matter is that the parties are seeking the decree in respect of their compromise, so that the same can be executed. However, the learned trial Court take into account the directions issued by this Court to the effect that the Lok Adalats are not empowered to pass a decree where parties have no pre-existing rights and while relying upon the decision in Kale & others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 SC 807, held that the compromise, as effected between the parties, requires registration. In the considered opinion of this Court all this relates to the merits of the case. If the parties are not satisfied that suit is dismissed as withdrawn, the Court below shall take up the case and decided the same either on the basis of compromise or on merits, so that they may further questioned the legality of the same. The suit being dismissed as withdrawn, no further remedy is left with the petitioners, seeking execution of the compromise. Though the impugned order touches the merit of the case, but the same has been passed on the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the order dated 25.9.2010 and not in the main suit. Civil Revision No. 3516 of 2011 3 In view of this, the impugned orders dated 25.9.2010 and 5.2.2011 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned trial Court with a direction to first restore the suit and then take up the same and decide the fate thereof, in accordance with law, but without being influenced from any observations made in this order. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 31, 2011 Jiten