RSA No.1500 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1500 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:07.04.2010 Rang Lal .... appellant Versus Smt.Bhagwani Devi & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondent against the decree of the trial court has been accepted and suit of the plaintiff-appellant for setting aside the decree dated 16.08.1999 in favour of the defendant-respondent has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for setting aside the civil court decree dated 16.08.1999 passed by Mr.Virender Malik, Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Hisar, in civil suit titled as 'Hazuri Lal vs.Rang Lal' being illegal and declaring him to be owner in possession of the suit land averring that he was the owner in possession of suit land on the basis of a civil court decree bearing No.716 dated 19.09.1986. It was further alleged that defendant No.1 (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) filed Civil Suit No.19-C against the appellant on 16.11.1996 claiming that he was owner in possession of land RSA No.1500 of 2010(O & M) 2 measuring 2 acres as per family settlement dated 11.09.1988. In that civil suit, ad interim stay was granted to the defendant-respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.12.1996. Appellant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which came up before the Lower Appellate Court on 08.04.1997 where he gave a statement that the matter was compromised to give land measuring 312/10/2(3-2)11(6-18) situated at village Barwala and the respondent would have no claim with the remaining suit property. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, a decree dated 16.08.1999 was passed by the Court of Mr.Virender Malik, the then Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.) incorporating the aforesaid compromise dated 08.04.1997 in the decree. Challenging the aforesaid decree, by way of this suit, appellant had submitted that the aforesaid compromise Ex.P3 was not lawful and no decree could have been passed by the Court on the basis of aforesaid statement. However, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007, defendant No.1(predecessor-in-interest of respondents) filed an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the Lower Appellate court has erred at law while treating the decree dated 16.08.1999 as a compromise decree as there was no compromise between the parties as is evident from the record of the trial Court and in fact no compromise took place between the parties and none was placed on record nor any statement to the effect was made in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that since the decree dated 16.08.1999 was not passed on the basis of a compromise, suit to challenge the same was maintainable and the bar of Order 23 Rule 3 A CPC was not attracted. RSA No.1500 of 2010(O & M) 3 On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the judgment(Ex.P-12) and the decree(Ex.P-13) based thereupon was a compromise decree within the meaning of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC? 2. Whether a separate suit challenging judgment(Ex.P- 12) and decree(Ex.P-13) was maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 3. Whether filing of a written compromise signed by the parties to the suit is pre-requisite before a suit can be decided under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment (Ex.P-12) was compulsorily registrable? 5. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in concluding that the judgment(Ex.P-12) was passed on the concession of counsel for the parties? I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Admittedly, in Misc.Appeal No.215 of 14.12.1996 decided on 08.04.1997, the appellant made a statement in the court of Additional District Judge, Hisar, which reads as follows: “I had filed the present appeal. The matter has been compromised, with Hazuri Lal respondent-plaintiff. In lieu of compromise, it has been decided that I would give land measuring 10 K comprised in khasra No.10/2(3-2),11(6-18) RSA No.1500 of 2010(O & M) 4 rectangle No.312 located in village Barwala, Distt.Hisar and respondent would have no concern with the remaining suit property. In view of compromise, I do not want to proceed with the appeal and the same be dismissed as withdrawn.” Again, there is no dispute that the Civil Suit No.19-C of 16.11.1996 between the parties was disposed of by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division)Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.1999 which reads as follows: “Today the case is fixed for consideration on the compromise taken place between the parties on 8.4.1997 before learned Additional District Judge,Hisar. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and he is entitled to enter his name as owner in revenue record. Earlier the stay application was allowed vide order dated 12.11.1996. Defendant filed an appeal against that order. During the appeal the matter was compromised between plaintiff and defendant. The statement of defendant made in appeal is also on file in which it was admitted by the defendant that he would give land measuring 10 kanals comprised in khasra No. 10/2(3-2), 11(6-18) rectangle number regulated in village Barwala Tehsil and District Hisar and plaintiff would have no concern with the remaining suit property. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been compromised between plaintiff and defendant therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per the terms of the compromise dated 8.4.1997. Compromise dated 8.4.1997 shall be the part of decree sheet. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due RSA No.1500 of 2010(O & M) 5 compliance.” From the reading of the aforesaid statement and the judgment and decree, it is clearly established that the appellant made a statement in the Court conceding the claim of the respondents on 8.4.1997 and the Court of Mr.Virender Malik, the then Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.) vide judgment dated 16.08.1999 while relying upon the aforesaid statement of the appellant passed the decree in favour of defendant No.1(predecessor- in-interest of the respondents). There is no challenge to the aforesaid decree on the ground that the statement dated 08.04.1997 was not made in the court or the same was made by misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the appellant. Thus, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Hisar while decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the appellant. Neither, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not disputed the correctness of the statement made before the court on 08.04.1997 nor learned counsel for the appellant was able to point out any evidence on record on the basis of which it can be made out that the aforesaid statement made by the appellant could not be relied upon while decreeing the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.1999. In view of aforesaid undisputed facts, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.04.2010 neenu