1 AO-358-04.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 358 OF 2004 1. Shri Gundu Somana Patil, ) Age 65 years, Occ: Agril. ) R/o. Village Dholagarwadi, Tal:Chandgad, ) Dist. Kolhapur. ) 2. Shri Krishna Somana Patil ) Age 47 years, rest. -Do- ) 3. Smt. Bhagubai w/o. Rama Kalkhambakar ) Age 54 years,Occ: Household work, ) R/o. at village Basarge, Tal: Chandgad, ) Dist. Kolhapur. ) 4. Smt. Kasubai w/o. Jiwaba Varape, ) Age 47 years, Occ: Household work, ) residing at Village Kalkundri, ) Tal: Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur. ).. Appellants (Org. defendants.) Vs. Shri GopalSatupa Sutar, ) Age 50 years, Occ: Agril. ) R/o. Vilage Dholagarwadi, ) Tal: Chandgad,Dist. Kolhapur. )..Respondent/Orig.Plaintiff Shri Rahul S. Kate, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri G.N.Salunkhe, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 6th June , 2011. JUDGMENT: 2 AO-358-04.sxw 1. The original defendants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gadhinglaj whereby he allowed Regular Civil Appeal No.75 of 1998 filed by the respondent, who is original plaintiff and set aside the order dated 13.7.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Chandgad, disposing of the suit on the basis of the compromise pursis dated 7.7.1996. 2. To state in brief, the plaintiff/respondent had filed Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 1983 in respect of certain house property. According to the defendants, on 7.7.1996, a Pursis was filed under the signature of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and thereby the matter was compromised. It appears that the said Pursis was not taken on record nor the Presiding Officer of the Court had passed any order on the basis of that Pursis. The plaintiff fled an application dated 27.1.1998 for rejecting the said Pursis wherein he denied to have entered into any compromise. The learned trial Court however rejected the application of the plaintiff and at the same time passed an order to record that Pursis and to dispose of the suit on the basis of the said compromise. That order was challenged by the plaintiff by preferring an appeal before the District Court. The District Court, after hearing the parties, allowed that appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 3 AO-358-04.sxw 3. Even though according to the defendants/appellants, the said Pursis was field on 7.7.1996, it appears that the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court had never heard the parties on that Pursis nor the parties had informed the Court that they had in fact entered into such compromise and the parties wanted the suit to be decreed on the basis of that compromise Pursis. The said Pursis was pending for about 1-1/2 year when the plaintiff filed the application making a prayer for rejection of that Pursis, which clearly shows that the plaintiff did not accept the correctness of the said Pursis. It also shows that the plaintiff was not willing to compromise the matter as per the terms recorded in the said Pursis. Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. reads thus :- "3. Compromise of suit - Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement,compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit]: 4 AO-358-04.sxw Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment." From the language, it is clear that it should be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit had been adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties before the Court may order such agreement,compromise or satisfaction to be recorded and before a decree in accordance with the said compromise can be passed. In the present case, the very fact that for 1½ year the parties had not appeared before the Court for recording compromise and it was not even signed by some of the defendants or their advocates. The order passed by the learned trial Court on 13.7.1978 shows that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had filed a Pursis at the time of hearing on the said compromise Pursis they had authorized their Advocate to sign the Pursis and on the basis of that the learned Civil Judge directed the Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to put signature on the compromise pursis. In fact, it was none of the business of the trial Court to direct the Advocate for the defendants to sign said compromise pursis. There was no valid explanation why it was not signed by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or their Advocate for a period of two years after it was 5 AO-358-04.sxw originally prepared. According to the plaintiff, the suit was pending. For the local inspection of the property since before 7.7.1996. No notice was given to him that any compromise was going to be filed in Court on 7.7.1996 and it shows that the said Pursis was filed by defendants in absence of the plaintiff. In view of this, it could not be said that the Court was satisfied that the parties had entered into a compromise as recorded in the Pursis and therefore the decree could not be passed as compromise decree on the basis of the said Pursis. The appellate Court has duly considered the facts and the legal position while passing the impugned order. By setting aside the order of the trial Court, the learned Addl. District Judge remanded the suit back to the trial Court for disposal as per law. No prejudice is likely to be caused to any of the parties if the matter is disposed of on its merits as per law. I find no substance or valid reason to interfere in the impugned order. 4. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose of the same within six months as it is pending since 1983. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)