SBCR NO.143/2007 – ASHOK KUMAR V/S SMT. KANTA AND ORS. AND SBCR NO.2/2008 – RAJU V/S SMT. PREM KANTA AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.4.8.2008. 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. 1. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.143/2007 Ashok Kumar versus Smt. Prem Kanta. 2. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2/2008 Raju @ Raj Prasad versus Smt. Prem Kanta. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.D.K.Parihar, for the petitioners Mr.C.S.Kotwani, for the respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 4th August, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. These two revision petitions are filed against the order SBCR NO.143/2007 – ASHOK KUMAR V/S SMT. KANTA AND ORS. AND SBCR NO.2/2008 – RAJU V/S SMT. PREM KANTA AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.4.8.2008. 2/4 dtd.7.6.2007 and 22.3.2007 whereby the learned Executing Court rejected objections of the judgment debtors under Order 47 Rule 21 C.P.C. The decree in question was passed upon the compromise between the parties in an eviction matter, which was duly verified by the learned Dist. Judge, Banswara on 11.2.2004 in presence of two of the three defendants, namely, Sh. Satya Naryan S/o Chiman lal and Raju S/O Chiman Lal and 3rd defendant Ashok Kumar S/O Sh. Chiman Lal was not present in the Court. However, the said compromise was duly signed by two of the defendants Satya Narayan and Raju duly identified by their respective advocates appearing in the Court. The said Advocate Sh. Chandra Badan Sharma also signed the said compromise on behalf of 3rd defendant Ashok Kumar S/O Sh. Chiman Lal. The objections of two out of three defendants - judgment debtors, namely, Raju and Ashok Kumar have been rejected by the learned Executing Court below by the impugned orders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners – objectors relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh V/s Chatur Bhuj Goel reported in AIR SBCR NO.143/2007 – ASHOK KUMAR V/S SMT. KANTA AND ORS. AND SBCR NO.2/2008 – RAJU V/S SMT. PREM KANTA AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.4.8.2008. 3/4 1988 (SC) 400 and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another V/s Indusind Bank Ltd. and ors. Reported in AIR 2005 (SC) 439 submitted that the compromise could not have been verified and accepted and no decree could be passed in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 C..C. because the compromise was not signed by all the parties. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable because in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) there was sole defendant - judgment debtor, on whose behalf the compromise was entered into by the advocate concerned and written compromise having not been signed by the parties, the Court held that requirement of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. was not satisfied and thus, in that context, it was held that there was no need to dispense with the requirement of signing of said agreement by the parties. In the present case admittedly, the plaintiff as well as two out of the three defendants had signed the said compromise duly verified and identified by their concerned advocates and against one of the defendants, namely, Ashok Kumar, the advocate concerned had signed the said compromise. The said compromise was duly verified by SBCR NO.143/2007 – ASHOK KUMAR V/S SMT. KANTA AND ORS. AND SBCR NO.2/2008 – RAJU V/S SMT. PREM KANTA AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.4.8.2008. 4/4 the District Judge, Banswara and thus, the decree was passed in accordance with the Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. There is no dispute from the side of the petitioner that the said objector Sh. Ashok Kumar had already duly authorized Sh. Chandra Badan Sharma, Advocate to appear and contest the suit on his behalf including the power to enter into compromise before the Court. 5. This Court has perused his Vakalatnama before the learned trial Court and also the compromise in question duly verified by the learned Dist. Judge, Banswara. This Court is satisfied that the requirement of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. were duly satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the decree could not have been questioned. The objections of the judgment debtors were rightly rejected by the learned Executing Court and thus, the revision petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.52-53 Ss/-