RSA No. 18 of 1998 7.7.2008 Present: Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3, CPC have been correctly and properly appreciated by the learned District Judge, while effecting a compromise between the parties particularly in the absence of the appellant and without any clear instructions to the counsel of the appellant by the later. Civil Suit No. 6 of 1991 was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, camp at Dalhousie, in terms of judgment, decree dated 25.6.1994. Smt. Shashi Lamba Longkhimer, as plaintiff had sought a decree of possession and permanent injunction against Shri Mulakh Raj, sole defendant. The plaintiff was claiming to be owner in possession of land measuring 0-0-50 Hcts., comprised in Khasra No.1450/1, situated in Moti Tibba, Dalhousie, H.P. The plaintiff assailed the judgment passed by the trial Court before the District Judge, Chamba, H.P. vide Civil Appeal No. 28/94. During the pendency of the appeal on 24.7.1997, the statement of Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for Shri Mulakh Raj, defendant, was recorded to the effect that the defendant Shri Mulakh Raj, who had authorized him to make the statement, was ready to deposit Rs.2000/- within 30 days to be 2 paid to the plaintiff in lieu of her right in respect of the suit land. If the amount was not deposited within 30 days the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum . The said statement was accepted and a separate statement of Shri Shiam Krishan Chopra, General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff Smt. Shashi Lamba Longkhimer, was recorded to the effect that the offer made by defendant Shri Mulakh Raj was accepted and statement was made that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of compromise. A separate statement of Shri M.P.Puri, Advocate, for the plaintiff-respondent was also recorded to the said effect. The said statements were signed by the counsel and form part of the order-sheet. Learned District Judge has also appended his signatures as proof of the statements having been made in his presence. In terms of the compromise arrived at and the statements recorded, the first Appellate Court, after incorporating the terms of the compromise as part of the decree-sheet, disposed of the appeal in terms of its judgment and decree dated 24.7.1997. The same is subject matter of challenge here. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compromise is void and, therefore, it would fall within the exception carved out under Order 23 Rule 3, CPC. I have perused the record and also heard the learned counsel for the appellant. From the record, it is evident that the statements of the parties/counsel were recorded and form part of the order-sheet. 3 The statements were duly signed by all the counsel. There is no challenge whatsoever to the authority of the counsel making the said statements. It is not the case of the appellant herein that the statements were recorded under duress, misrepresentation, coercion or as an act of fraud. In Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR v. Rajinder Singh and Ors, AIR 2006 SC 2628, after considering the earlier view taken by the Court in Byram Pestoni Gariwala vs Union Bank of India and others [(1992) 1 SCC 31]; Jineshwardas (D) by LRs and others vs. Jagrani (Smt.) and another [(2003) 11 SCC 372] and Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel [(1988) 1 SCC 270 : AIR 1988 SC 400], the Court came to the conclusion that the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3, CPC would be fully met if the statement of the parties or their counsel formed part of the record in writing as the same would constitute a compromise. Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court, in my view, the essential ingredients so as to constitute a compromise in writing and signed by the parties has been duly met. The statements are clear. The authority of the counsel has not been revoked or challenged at any point of time nor any action has been taken against them. The instructions were clear and the presence of the parties was not necessary in view of the fact that their counsel have clearly deposed that they were authorized to make the same. In my view, the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3, CPC have been correctly and properly appreciated by the learned District Judge while effecting the compromise between the parties. The 4 presence of the counsel, who were duly authorized, is suffice and the absence of the party would not matter. There were clear instructions to the counsel to enter into a compromise. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7th July, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.