IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4669 of 2005 Date of decision:25.05.2009 Jai Singh ...Petitioner versus Nand Lal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate for the respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The matter is in revision against an order dismissing an application for recording an alleged compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The trial Court found that there were no compromise terms at all and dismissed the petition. The defendant, who is aggrieved by the order, has come up on revision. 2. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, at the time of admission on 29.08.2006, the trial of the suit has been stayed. In order that the provisions under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC are attracted, it is required that there is a settlement or compromise arrived at between the parties and signed by them. The Court is required to entertain its satisfaction that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by such Civil Revision No.4669 of 2005 - 2 - lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties. 3. It is imperative that there shall be a compromise between the parties in writing and the said agreement must record the fact that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part. The document on the basis of which the petition was filed by the petitioner for dismissing the suit as settled, is not an agreement as such, but it is in the nature of the petition, which is reproduced as under :- “Application for sending the file to the permanent Lok Adalat. Sir, The plaintiffs/ applicants most respectfully submit as under :- 1. That the above suit is pending in this Hon'ble Court for 27.8.2004 for W.S. And arguments on stay application. 2. That the parties to suit have reached compromised. As per the compromise the suit of the plaintiff is to be dismissed as withdrawn and the amount of Court fee will be refunded to the plaintiff- applicant. Moreover, the entry of mortgage in the revenue record will be redeemed by way of this compromise and the plaintiff-applicants are not entitled to get any amount from the defendant by way of this suit. The defendant-respondent is entitled to get redeemed the suit land by way of this compromise. It is, therefore, most respectfully with this Civil Revision No.4669 of 2005 - 3 - application prayed that the above said suit may kindly be sent to the permanent Lok Adalat for its decision. Plaintiffs 1. Nand Lal son of Sh.Gaya Ram, R/o 1085, Saini Mohalla, Hisar. 2. Mangtu Ram S/o Sh.Bhola Ram, Vill. Migni Khera, Teh. and Distt. Hisar. Through : Sh.RS Jain, Advocate, Hisar.” 4. It may be noticed that the said document does not contain any terms of settlement, which has been referred to as an application for sending the file to the Permanent Lok Adalat. The document is again not signed by the defendant. If there had been a compromise already, there was no need for a reference even to Lok Adalat. If this document could again be taken as a compromise, it should have been filed in the very same Court to obtain the imprimatur of the Court. The procedure adopted was indeed strange. The defendant himself had not joined in the petition and it was for a reference to a Lok Adalat for consideration of a compromise by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the compromise was not effected and the matter was remitted from the Lok Adalat back to the Court, on a plea by the plaintiff himself that his signature was obtained without apprising him about the recitals of the petition and that the matter should be sent back to Court. 5. The only ground on which the Court could treat the matter as settled could be, if there existed a compromise which was Civil Revision No.4669 of 2005 - 4 - disclosed through any instrument in writing by both the parties. Such a document was not available. 6. The Court was perfectly justified in saying that there was no agreement in the eye of law on the basis of which it could treat the suit as compromised or settled. The dismissal of the petition by the defendant seeking for dismissal of the suit, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified. There is no scope for interference in revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.05.2009 sanjeev