Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2011 Date of decision:- 14.11.2011 Col. Manjit Singh Sodhi (Retd.) ...Petitioner Versus Mrs. Satinder Kapoor and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge is to the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC moved by the petitioner-defendant for recording the compromise and disposing the suit in terms thereof has been dismissed. The petitioner is brother and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and sisters. On 28.11.2000 respondent Nos.1-Satinder Kapoor wife of N.S. Kapoor and No.2-Inderjit Kaur Sahi wife of Satnam Singh Sahi filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner praying that they may be declared as co- owners to the extent of 1/3rd share each of property i.e. House No.1124, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. This house was left behind by their mother Mrs. Pushpa Wati Sodhi. Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2011 -2- On notice, the petitioner i.e. brother of respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed his written statement by virtue of a registered Will executed by the mother on 28.6.1975, the petitioner became owner of 3/4th of the above mentioned immovable property and balance 1/4th belonged to respondent No.2. The petitioner was prepared to surrender 1/4th of his 3/4th share in the house in question in favour of respondent No.1. The matter remained pending and on 11.4.2005 the parties reached at an amicable settlement. The application for compromise was prepared, which was duly signed by both the counsel and parties as well. As per the compromise (Ex.P-2) the petitioner had agreed to retain one- half of the house and remaining half was to be shared by both the sisters having 1/4th share each. This compromise was placed on record as Ex.P2 and application was moved by the plaintiffs and defendant before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The matter was taken up by the Lok Adalat on 19.4.2005 but the compromise could not reach. On 5.12.2006, on the application, following issue was framed :- “1. Whether the present suit is liable to be disposed of in terms of compromise Ex.P2 as alleged? OPA/OPD” The onus to prove this issue was on the applicant-Col. Manjit Singh Sodhi, the present petitioner. In reply to the application, the respondents took the plea that the petitioner- defendant-Col. Manjit Singh Sodhi had played a fraud with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not bound by the compromise as no Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2011 -3- compromise had taken place. No terms of compromise were settled before the Lok Adalat. Since the parties were at logger heads qua adjustment of the suit in terms of compromise (Ex.P- 2) the trial Court dismissed the application on 22.9.2011. In Gurpreet Singh versus Chatur Bhuj Goel AIR 1988 Supreme Court 400 the Court had examined the applicability of the Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It is held that when a compromise is entered into between the parties has been recorded in writing and signed by both the parties and the Court has to record its satisfaction. The contents of the compromise are to be satisfied by tendering the evidence. The parties can lead evidence to prove that the compromise was effected. It is for the Court to decide after taking the evidence and the affidavits whether there has been a compromise to the satisfaction of the claim and thereafter passed decree in accordance with Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The provisions contained under order 23 Rule 3 CPC are reproduced as under :- “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 Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2011 -4- subject-matter of the suit. Provide 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.” In the facts of the present case, there was an admission by the plaintiffs and respondent that they had signed the compromise (Ex.P-2) but the respondent alleged that the compromise could not be effected as the terms could not be settled before the Lok Adalat. Once the compromise was denied, as per proviso 2 of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Even though the compromise was reduced in writing and duly signed by the parties but when the contents of the terms have been denied by the respondent no decree under Order 23 Rule 3 on the basis of compromise could be passed. The Civil Revision is dismissed. November 14, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE