R.S.A No.631 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No.631 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : February 11, 2010 Smt. Tejinder Kaur, ...... Appellant (s) v. Kulwant Kaur and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2009 of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2007 passed by the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been decided on the basis of an agreement between the parties. The appellant had filed a suit claiming share in the property along with respondent No.1. On the initiative of the trial Court, during the pendency of the trial, an agreement was worked out between the parties with the assistance of the counsel whereby the respondents agreed to pay an R.S.A No.631 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: amount of Rs.1.10 lac to the appellant on or before 31.5.2008 in full and final settlement of her claims against the property. This offer was accepted by the appellant and consequently the suit was decreed in terms of the agreement. However, the appellant thereafter filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. In the present appeal, the following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the impugned decisions of the Courts below are erroneous, against law, perverse and liable to be set aside ? ii) Whether the disposal of the suit in the manner adopted by the trial Court is violative of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code and the procedure prescribed therein ? iii) Whether the resort to Section 89 CPC is bad in law in view of the stage of the suit and in view of the failure of earlier efforts for compromise during the pendency of the suit ?” It would be seen that question No. (i) is a general omnibus question, the answer to which will depend upon the answers to questions No. (ii) and (iii) which are overlapping. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court has invoked Section 89 of the CPC in support of its order but the procedure stated therein has not been followed. In my opinion, the present is a case where the trial Court itself exercised the powers of a mediator/counsellor and persuaded the parties to come to a settlement. In any case, the action of R.S.A No.631 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: the Court can be referred to Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. In the circumstances, even if the procedure suggested is not strictly followed, it would not detract from the fact that at one point of time, the appellant and the respondents had come to a mutual solution of their dispute. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the compromise was obtained by practicing deceit on the appellant. However, in view of the fact that the trial Court has mentioned in its order that it was on its initiative and with the valuable assistance of the counsel that the parties had arrived at a compromise, the assertion of counsel for the appellant seems to be far fetched and incredible. The lower appellate Court has also considered all these aspects of the matter and was not persuaded that there was any dishonesty about the settlement. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 11, 2010. JUDGE `kk'