S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11016/2010 Jhumma Vs. ADJ (F.T) No.2, Alwar and ors. Dated : 01.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. HP Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Gupta, for the respondents. *** By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 19th July, 2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar dismissed the compound petition dated 17th May, 2010 and 4th February, 2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the parties canvassed that all the three defendants have entered into a compromise, hence, the suit is required to be decreed accordingly. Learned trial court sans assigning any reason has dismissed the applications and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Having reflected over the submissions and scanned the impugned order, it is noticed that initially one respondent Majidan entered into compromise with the plaintiff and beseeched to decree the suit. Learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the compromise between the plaintiff and one respondent could -2- affect the rights of the rest of the respondents, hence, the compromise could not be attested. Second time, rest of the two respondents entered into compromise with the plaintiff and this compound petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that since one petition of respondent Majidan with regard to compromise had already been dismissed, hence, this compound petition of the rest of the two defendants could not be attested as the attestation of this compromise could affect the rights of respondent Majidan. Learned trial Court also observed that the admission in written statement did not amount to admission under law. Rule 3 of Order 23 of CPC envisages that 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. -3- 5. This provision contemplates that before passing a decree in accordance with the compromise, the Court should be fully satisfied that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by the lawful compromise. The compromise between the parties should be voluntarily and should not be collusive. In the case on hand, at the first instance one respondent Majidan filed the compound petition and rest of the two defendants remained silent. When the compound application of respondent Majidan was dismissed, then the rest of the two defendants filed the comprise. Since all the respondents did not voluntarily entered into an agreement with the plaintiff together, their applications, having been filed separately, stood dismissed. However, if all the parties are agreeable, the court should act on such compromise but the Court should satisfy itself as to whether there has been in fact, a compromise and the same is lawful. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it is found to be just and proper and to my view, it warrants no intervention. 6. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merits stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg