THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO O S A No. 4 of 2010 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) This appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is at the instance of the registered assignor in C.S no. 14 of 1958, who is aggrieved against the delay in taking up the application, which has been filed for recording the compromise between the parties thereto getting adjourned for no reason, in spite of the fact that the parties are present when the matter is posted. Few facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal at this juncture, are that in C S No. 14 of 1958, which has chequered events apart from a preliminary decree having been passed long ago, several proceedings have been taken up including for final decree. The appellant, who filed the present application purportedly under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, claims that he has purchased the decretal rights in respect of land to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Survey No. 18 of Hafeezpet village in Serilingampalli mandal in Ranga Reddy district, under the registered deed of sale dated 19.6.2008 from the first respondent/defendant no.206, who is entitled to an extent of Ac.107.33 guntas out of total extent, as per the report of the Receiver cum Commissioner. The appellant has filed an application in Application no. 1203 of 2008 for the said extent of Ac.10.00 guntas. Since the respondents 2 and 3 are also claiming the said land under an unregistered assignment deed, the appellant and the said respondent no.2 and 3 have reached a settlement and duly entered into a memorandum of compromise dated 22.6.2009, showing the extents clearly in the sketch thereto with the meets and bounds for dividing the property and for a final decree accordingly in terms thereof. Earlier proceedings have been taken up for issuance of notice both by publication in the newspapers and otherwise, calling for objections. At this juncture, the present application has been filed in Application No. 517 of 2009 stating an above mentioned that there is a compromise between the parties thereto, namely with the said defendant nos.206 and defendants 313 and 332 on the agreed terms in writing under the memorandum and the same to be recorded. However, the complaint of the appellant is that even though the said application has been filed in last week of June 2009, for the purpose of recording compromise and the parties are present, the matter undergone several adjournments for no reason from 14.7.2009 to 15.7.2009 and later to 20.7.2009, 23.7.2009 and 28.7.2009. And for recording the parties had to be present on every date of hearing. Further, having regard to the busy schedule, the matters could not reach. Yet again, when the matter reached on 13.11.2009, it was adjourned. It is stated that when there is compromise of lis between the parties, there is no reason to delay in recording the compromise. Further, it only gives a quietus to the litigation and dispute between the parties. That apart, as provided under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as and when a compromise is filed by the parties, the same should be recorded on the Court getting satisfied with the said compromise. Whereas no such occasion arose, hence, there is reason for postponement. Further, even on the face of it, there is nothing to show that there is any illegality or otherwise to record the compromise. The said compromise between the parties is in respect of the subject matter of the properties. Hence, there is no other go except to record compromise as and when the matter is taken up. There is no contest from any quarter or parties to the proceedings including by the Receiver cum Commissioner, who was appointed by this Court. On the appraisal of the aforesaid facts supported by the affidavit in the application filed before the learned Single Judge along with the said memorandum of compromise as agreed between themselves, it is to be seen in the given situation, the course of action as contemplated under the provisions of the law. For convenience sake, it necessitates to refer to Rule 3 of Order XXIII of Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under; “3 Compromise of suit: Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part any lawful agreement or compromise, 1 Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, Sec. 74 (w.e.f. 1st February, 1977). [in writing and signed by the partics] 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 2 Subs. by Act 104 of 1976, for the words "so far as it relates to the suit" (w.e.f. 1st February, 1977). [so far 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 Added by Act 104 of 1976. (w.e.f. 1st February, 1977). [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.] 4 Ins. by Act 104 of 1976. (w.e.f. 1st February, 1977). [Explanation.-An agreement of compromise which is void or voidable under Indian Contract Act, 1872, shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.]” On a bare reading of the above provision, it amply indicates as to the basic ingredients which are required for recording of the compromise between the parties. Necessarily, at the first instance, it should be in writing and duly signed by the parties to such settlement and such settlement should be from the willing and voluntary act of the parties in respect of the said matter of the property involved in the proceedings and further on such satisfaction the said compromise has to be recorded. There can be a compromise between some of the parties and it is not necessary that all the parties to the proceedings should also be parties to any compromise between such limited parties. Further, the compromise can also relate to a part of the property and need not be the entire subject matter. As per the present dispute between the parties to the compromise is concerned, there is no other claim coming forward nor any objection being raised in respect of the said extent. Therefore, the said compromise along with the application has been filed sufficiently long back and as stated on behalf of the appellant it is being adjourned on every date of hearing on which date the parties are present as it is necessary for recording of compromise. Nothing has been brought to our notice as to why the same is not being taken up for the purpose of recording nor anything has been shown to us as to the very genuineness or voluntary action on the part of the parties for entering the said compromise. In the circumstances, the Court has no other go, but to record the compromise as agreed to between the parties, after recording the satisfaction. It is also necessary to note that in respect of any litigation between the parties and especially in the nature of proceedings in the present case, which has been pending for quite long time, the parties choose to settle their dispute, there cannot be any other go but to accept the same. Further, having regard to the long pendency of the proceedings in C.S.No.15/1958 in this Court, one some or other count, the process to finalise through respective final decrees, wherever the parties settle and enter into compromise, should be the apt approach. It is now well settled that there can be more than one final decree or as many as can be, in between, limited to those parties, supported by valid and registered deeds. It is not necessary to implead all the parties thereto, except to the extent of the parties to the settlement. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Court should have proceeded to record the compromise and the matter to be posted immediately. The appeal is, accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R KANTHA RAO,J DATE: 18.2.2010 RRB