RSA No. 2828 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2828 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.5.2011. Jasbir Singh and others .......Appellants Vs. Mehar Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of 1/8th share out of the land measuring 166 Kanals 19 Marlas. The defendants were remotely related to the plaintiff. The defendants approached the plaintiff that a scheme had been provided by the State government for grant of old age pension. In this regard thumb impressions of the plaintiff had been got affixed by the defendants on blank papers as well as on some printed papers. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that defendants had manipulated a judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995 in their favour. The said judgment and decree were illegal, null and void and were RSA No. 2828 of 2008 (O&M) -2- not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had never appeared in the court to suffer a statement nor had filed any written statement in the suit. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the defendants are the grand-sons of the plaintiff. The impugned judgment and decree were legal and valid and had been suffered by the plaintiff out of his own free will. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995 passed by court of Ms. Neena Choudhary, the then Ld. Addl. Sr. Sub Judge, Ambala in civil suit No. 555/CS dated 29.7.1995 titled as Jasbir Singh etc. Vs. Mehar Singh relating to the suit property as detailed in the headnote of the plaint situated in village Badoli, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala is illegal, null and void inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside being based on fraud and misrepresentation? OPP 2. In case issue NO.1 is decided in favour of plaintff, then whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief.” RSA No. 2828 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal. The Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2008 decreed the suit in terms of compromise Ex. C-1. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first appellate court had erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of the compromise Ex. C-1 as none of the parties was relying on the said compromise. The plaintiff, while appearing in the witness box, had denied his thumb impressions on the compromise. Moreover, the compromise was produced on record in the year 2002, whereas it was allegedly executed in the year 1997. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that in fact the compromise had been produced on record in the year 1997 itself and the statements of the parties were also recorded but the trial court had failed to dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The question that requires consideration, in the present case is, as to whether the suit could be disposed of in terms of the compromise Ex. C-1. The compromise Ex. C-1 is dated 8.5.1997. A perusal of the record of the trial court reveals that the appeal filed by the present appellants against the order passed by the trial court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed as withdrawn by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 22.4.1997 as it was stated by the parties that RSA No. 2828 of 2008 (O&M) -4- the compromise had been effected between them and they would get the compromise recorded before the trial court, where the civil suit was pending. The present appellants had made a statement on 29.5.1997 before the trial court that a compromise had been effected between the parties and the compromise was Ex.D-1 and the same had been singed by them. It was further stated that plaintiff had thumb marked the same and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in terms of the compromise. On the said date, the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff was also recorded, wherein he stated that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in terms of the compromise Ex.D- 1 which had been scribed in his presence and had been signed/thumb marked by the parties. Mehar Singh-plaintiff made a statement on 31.5.1997 before the trial court that a compromise had been effected between the parties and the original compromise was Ex. D-1 and the same was thumb marked/signed by the parties. The suit be decreed in terms of the compromise. On 18.3.2002, the statements of the parties were again recorded before the trial court. Mehar Singh-plaintiff stated that he had arrived at a compromise with the defendants. The original compromise was Ex. C-1 and he identified his thumb impressions on the same. He further stated that the conditions mentioned in the compromise were correct and the suit be decreed in terms of the compromise Ex.C-1. Defendants also made a statement on the same day that they had arrived at a compromise with the plaintiff and the original compromise was Ex.C-1. They had read the same and the same was correct. They identified their signatures on Ex.C-1 and stated that the suit be decreed in terms of the compromise. RSA No. 2828 of 2008 (O&M) -5- It is not understandable as to why the suit of the plaintiff was not decreed in terms of the compromise on 31.5.1997 on the basis of the statements of the parties or on 18.3.2002. Thereafter, the defendants were proceeded exparte and the application moved by the defendants for setting aside the exparte proceedings was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.2.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appellants filed Civil Revision No. 1069 of 2007 in this court and the same was disposed of on 16.10.2007. A perusal of the said order reveals that the counsel for the plaintiff had stated that he had no objection if the exparte proceedings were set aside as the parties had already given the statements in the court qua compromise. Thus, the parties had been time and again making statements qua the compromise effected between them. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed in terms of the compromise Ex.C-1. The present appellants had twice suffered the statements before the trial court qua the genuineness of the compromise and had stated that the suit be decreed in terms of the compromise. Moreover, the revision petition filed by the present appellants was also allowed as it was stated by the counsel for the plaintiff that compromise had been effected between the parties. In these circumstances, the appellants at this stage cannot say that the compromise was not effected between the parties. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2011 Gurpreet