CR No.2624 of 1992 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2624 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.01.2009 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with Ms.Priya Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CM No.26547-CII of 2008 Allowed. Order dated 5.12.2008 is recalled. The case is restored to its original number. CR No.2624 of 1992 This revision is directed against the order dated 18.8.1992 passed by learned Sub Judge III Class, Ludhiana vide which preliminary CR No.2624 of 1992 (O&M) 2 issue No.5 i.e. “whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form” has been decided against the petitioner. The plaintiff/respondent Gram Panchayat filed a suit to challenge the judgment and decree dated 23.5.1987 ordering specific performance of the contract in pursuance to agreement dated 15.9.1980. The plaintiff also challenged the sale deeds dated 19.6.1987, 19.5.1988 and mutation Nos. 547 and 548 entered on the basis of the said sale deeds. It was claimed that the sale deeds executed were in violation of Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and further that the decree was secured by the petitioner fraudulently. The decree was also challenged being outcome of fraud and misrepresentation and it was claimed that the decree, sale deeds and mutations are null and void, collusive, illegal and unlawful and are not binding on the plaintiff Gram Panchayat. Besides taking other objections, one of the objections taken by the petitioner/defendant was that the suit was not competent on the plea that in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) no separate suit was competent and the application was required to be moved in the same court. However, the plea of the petitioner stands rejected. Learned trial court has been pleased to hold that the decree was not a compromise decree arising out of compromise but was a decree passed in view of the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat admitting the claim of the plaintiff in the said suit as also the statement made in support of the stand CR No.2624 of 1992 (O&M) 3 taken in the written statement. The court, thus, held that this being not a compromise decree the suit was maintainable as decree passed by court was required to be challenged by way of separate suit and not by application as was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On consideration of the matter, I find that the decree under challenge in suit is to be treated to be one passed under Order 12 Rule 6 and not Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) th. LR. Sadhna Rai Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors.2006 (3) Latest Judicial Reports 671 contends that once the decree was passed on the basis of the statement the same has to be treated to be a compromise decree falling under Second part of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code. This contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) th. LR. Sadhna Rai Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (supra) was considering a compromise decree passed in favour of the parties. In the said case the plea raised was that the compromise having not been recorded in writing could not be said to be a compromise. It was in that situation that Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the statements made by the parties were to be treated to be compromise between the parties and thus, it was a decree passed in terms of Order 23 CR No.2624 of 1992 (O&M) 4 Rule 3 of the Code. It is not the case in the present case. There is no compromise between the parties. Rather in the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat the averments made in the plaint stood admitted and the statement was also made in support of the averments made in the written statement. The decree was not based on compromise to attract the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contended that in the present case once the provisions of Rules 1 to 5 of Order 12 were not followed it can be said that the decree was passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. This contention of the learned senior counsel is totally misconceived. The decree passed is on the basis of admission made in the written statement and therefore, the decree passed would be one passed under Order 12 Rule 6 and not under Order 23 Rules 3 and 3-A of the Code therefore, the learned trial court was right in deciding preliminary issue against the petitioner. In view of findings recorded above, there is no merit in the present revision petition which is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 6.01.2009 Judge rp