IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 4185 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.11.2010 Barinder Kaur …. Petitioner Versus Sukhbir Kaur and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. P.S. Bath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. Defendant No.1 is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 04.05.2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was declined. One Chuhar Singh, as owner, entered into an agreement to sell the land on 28.5.1995 and 3.8.1995 with the defendants i.e. Barinder Kaur, Mohinder Singh and Madan Pal Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. The defendants in the present suit have filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement executed with Chuhar Singh. The said defendants, as prospective vendees, entered into another agreement with plaintiff Sukhbir Kaur on 18.9.1995 to sell part of the aforesaid land on receipt of earnest money of Rs.4,10,000/-. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in favour of Sukhbir Kaur on the basis of the agreement dated 18.9.1995, Sukhbir Kaur filed suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.4,10,000/- and for damages and interest on the said amount. C.R.No.4185 of 2010 The parties entered into settlement in the said suit on 31.8.2001. It is the said terms of the compromise, which were sought to be clarified-amended by defendant No.1 by way of the present application, which has been declined by an order impugned in the revision. By virtue of the compromise, the plaintiff Sukhbir Kaur was to be treated as an associate to the extent of 1/2 share on payment of half of the earnest money in the suit for specific performance, filed by the present defendants against Chuhar Singh. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 were to pay Rs.1,85,000/- each to the plaintiff. The parties agreed that in the event of dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff will lose claim over the amount paid to the defendants. In the event the suit is decreed for recovery of the money, the plaintiff Sukhbir Kaur was to share half of the amount and in case the said suit is decreed, the plaintiff Sukhbir Kaur will have half share in the land. Qua the same, the parties are not in dispute. The relevant terms of compromise are as below:- “v) Present suit be thus dismissed as withdrawn and the parties be left to bear their own costs. It may be held that the present compromise shall be binding on the parties to the present suit. The present compromise may be made part of the judgment in the present case. vi) In case the suit filed at Balachaur is finally dismissed, it shall be deemed that the defendants and the plaintiff have lost their money advanced to Chuhar Singh. The plaintiff would not be entitled to claim any amount from the defendants in that case. vii) That in case two cheques issued by defendants Barinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh are not honoured and stand bounced, the suit of the present plaintiff shall be deemed to have been decreed as prayed for. 2 C.R.No.4185 of 2010 viii) In case cheques are not honoured, plaintiff shall have her remedy as per permissible under law against defendants. Parties be left to bear their own costs.” The dispute is in respect of payment of Rs.1,85,000/- each to be made by defendant No.1 Barinder Kaur and defendant No.2 Mohinder Singh vide two separate cheques. The cheque issued by Barinder Kaur has been honoured, whereas the cheque issued by Mohinder Singh has not been honoured. It is the consequences of dishonour of the cheque issued by Mohinder Singh, which led to filing of the application by defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the cheque issued by Barinder Kaur stands honoured, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from Mohinder Singh alone. It is argued that on payment by Barinder Kaur, the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of share of Barinder Kaur stands dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the suit stands decreed, as the two cheques issued by Barinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh are not honoured. It is argued that payment of one cheque was not sufficient, therefore, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed. Learned trial court, in the order impugned, has found that “Clause vii” of the compromise over-rides “Clause v” and that in terms of “Clause vii”, the suit stands decreed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is a elaborate document containing different terms and conditions. Clause v of the compromise is to withdraw the suit on receipt of Rs.1,85,000/- from the defendants. But Clause vii contemplates as a consequence of dishonour of cheques, the suit was deemed to be decreed. Therefore, Clauses v & vii deal different situation. The suit was to be withdrawn on receipt of cheque amount, whereas suit was deemed to be decreed, if the cheques are dishonoured. 3 C.R.No.4185 of 2010 It is well-settled that the document has to be interpreted by reading the terms of such document as a whole. A clause in the compromise cannot be read in isolation. The intention of the parties has to be gathered from reading of the entire document. The reading of the various terms of the compromise leave no manner of doubt that payment of two cheques alone would lead to dismissal of the suit and failure of payment of two cheqeus was to be treated as decree of the suit. Therefore, if one of the cheques has been encashed that would not lead to dismissal of part of the suit. It is the payment of two cheqeus which alone would lead to dismissal of the suit. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 29.11.2010 JUDGE Aj/Vimal 4