r' PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.5556 of 2010 Samrunisha W/o Shri Warsali, aged about 59 years, Caste Muslim, Resident ofVillage Dipadih Khurad, P.S. &Tahsil Shankergarh, District Sarguja (C.G.) Wrongly mentioned as Tahsil Kusmi in the impugned order, Now Tahsil is changed to Shankargarh. RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. Warsali S/o Enayat Minya, aged about 84 years, 2. Rojni D/o Enayat Minya, W/o Ali Mohammed, aged about 79 years. Both resident of Village Dipadih Khura, P.S. & Tahsil Shankergarh, District Sarguja (C.G.) Wrongly mentioned as Tahsil Kusmi in the impugned order, now Tahsil is changed to Shankargarh. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. A.K. Yadav, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (1-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia,the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 20-7-2010 passed by the 4 Civil Judge Class-11, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No.111A/2006, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application for compromise on the ground that at the time of such compromise petition and evidence, the plaint was not amended and the amended plaint was not the subject matter of compromise. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned anti copies of other documents. ""'""s'w 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have no right to object or deny the compromise if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit is adjusted wholly or in part. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Bhaja Govinda Maikap and another v. Janaki Dei and others in which the Orissa High Court has held that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part in Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any objection to such adjustment by the part:y on date of consideration of petition for compromise of suit did not authorize the court to refuse to record the connpronnise. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR Sadhna Rai (Smt) v. Rajinder Singh and others in which the Supreme Court has held that compromise signed and statements in writing signed by the parties are binding on the parties. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India and others in which the Supreme Court has held that agreement or compromise should be signed by the parties in person because the responsibility for compromising the suit, including matters falling outside its subject-matter, should be borne by none but the parties themselves. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Shyam Sundar Chaudhury and others v. Judhistir 'Jena and others in which the Orissa High Court has held that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part relating to the property out of the subject matter of the suit, same is binding upon the parties. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the petition. 5. The order impugned reveals that at the time of filing such compromise petition and recording of evidence the plaint was not amended and it was amended subsequently on 6-2-2010. Therefore, the subject matter for compromise was not available on the date of compromise dated 25-9-2007. 6. As held by the Orissa High Court in Bhaja Govinda's case (supra), where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part, subsequent objection will not authorize the court to refuse to record the compromise. In the present case, parties have failed to satisfy the court that they have compromised the matter. Therefore, the case of 1AIR 1980 Orissa 108 \ 2 AIR2006SC2628 \ 3 AFR 1991 SC 2234 '\4 1983 STPL (LE-Civil) 35229 Ori Soma Bhaja Govinda (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 7. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pushpa Devi (supra), compromise signed and statements in writing signed by the parties are binding on the parties. In the present case, alleged compromise and their statements are not related to the subject matter of compromise and, therefore, compromise in this case was not binding relating to subject matter of the case which was further pleaded and amended in the plaint. Therefore, the case of Pushpa Devi (supra) is also distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 8. As held in Byram Pestonji's case (supra), in the main compromise petition subject matter was not included. Therefore, the case of Byram Pestonji (supra) is also distinguishable on facts to that ofthe present case. 9. In Shyam Sundar's case (supra), the Orissa High Court has held that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part relating to the property out of the subject matter of the suit, same is binding upon the part:ies. In the present case, parties have not entered into compromise relating to subject matter of suit which was subsequently pleaded and included. Therefore, the case of Shyam Sundar (supra) is also distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. lO.While dismissing the compromise petition, the trial Court has not committed any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. —-—- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^a. i%?S5