Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karam Chand vs Chaman Lal on 25 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR406
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of three days in filing the revision is condoned.
2. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 4.4.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Hoshiarpur.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Karam Chand filed a suit for specific performance by way of possession against Chaman Lal. The parties contested that suit and, ultimately, vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1994, the trial Court passed a money decree in favour of Karam Chand for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% and proportionate costs. However, the relief for possession was not granted to the plaintiff Karam Chand. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, both the parties filed separate appeals in the Court of the District Judge. In the appeal, Karam Chand prayed for possession while Chaman Lal prayed for the entire dismissal of the suit. The number of the appeal filed by Chaman Lal was 98/1994 while a separate number was given to appeal of Karam Chand. Both the appeals came up for hearing before the first appellate Court on 4.4.1998. It appears that the parties to the suit/appeal compromised before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who in the right perspective recorded the statement of Chaman Lal, defendant, in Appeal No. 98 of 1994, and Chaman Lal made the following statement:-
"I withdraw my appeal as I have compromised with the respondent. I agree to pay or deposit in trial Court Rs. 40,000/- in full and final settlement of the decree within a period of one month failing which I shall pay the entire decretal amount as per decree."
The above statement was signed by Chaman Lal in Urdu. It further appears that on the same day, Shri A.K. Soni, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Karam Chand in the presence of Ashwani Kumar, who is stated to be son of Karam Chand. Shri A.K. Soni made a statement on behalf of his client Karam Chand to the following effect:-
"I have heard the statement of Chaman Lal, appellant and the same is correct. I agree to it. Karam Chand also withdraws his appeal being compromised as per the undertaking of Chaman Lal given in Court today. The parties to bear their own costs."
Besides the signatures of A.K. Soni, Advocate, the statement is also signed by Ashwani Kumar son of the petitioner Karam Chand.
On the basis of these statement, the following order was passed:-
"Heard. In view of the statement of the parties/their counsel recorded in the connected appeal, the appeal is dismissed as compromised. The parties shall be bound by the undertaking made by them today in the Court. Parties to bear their own costs.
Record be consigned."
One more order was passed on the same day in the other appeal as follows:-
"Heard. In view of the statement of the parties/their counsel in the connected appeal No. 98/94 Chaman Lal v. Karam Chand the appeal is dismissed as compromised. The parties shall be bound by the undertaking made by them today in the Court. Parties to bear their own costs. Record be consigned."
4. Not satisfied with the statement made by A.K. Soni, in the presence of his son, Karam Chand has filed the present revision to which a preliminary objection has been taken up by the counsel for the respondent that the order of the first appellate authority could only be challenged by the petitioner either by way of suit or by making a review application, if possible, before that Court. As such, the order is not subject to, revision.
5. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is being challenged by the counsel for the petitioner on the plea that the revision is maintainable as the petitioner was not bound by the statement of his counsel though it might have been recorded in the presence of his son and the counsel submitted that the trial Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, the revision is maintainable. The counsel has even gone to the extent by submitting that the petitioner never authorised his son to make any statement on his behalf and any such statement is not binding upon the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that this revision is not maintainable in the eyes of law. There is no dispute about the fact that Ashwani Kumar cannot bind the interest of his father, but for the benefit of the respondent it may be mentioned that A.K. Soni, Advocate, was authorised representative/agent of the petitioner and a lawyer has the power and authority under the Power of Attorney granted in his favour to make a statement on behalf of his client and even to the extent of suffering a decree. The statement of A.K. Soni is binding upon the petitioner.
7. Faced with this difficulty, counsel for the petitioner, then, submitted that the decree dated 4.4.1998 vide which the appeal of the plaintiff has been dismissed could only be impleaded if such compromise is reduced into writing and is registered.
8. The argument is again totally devoid of any merit. The statements of the parties have been recorded in the Court and as such consent decree order or orders are not required to be registered.
9. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent relies upon A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2234, Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India and Ors., in which is has been held that if a compromise has been effected in writing and is signed by counsel and may not be signed by the parties n person, the same is valid and binding on the parties and is executable and operates as res judicata even if it extends beyond subject matter of suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the expression 'in writing and signed by the party' occurring in Order 23 Rule 1, C.P.C. by stating that this expression also includes counsel and agent of the party and the counsel has the power to enter into compromise and this power is not curtailed by any amendment of C.P.C. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a consent decree is binding upon the parties as a decree passed after contest if the same is not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or mistake, such a decree has the binding force of res judicata.
10. Through this revision, the petitioner wants to reagitate the issue which he had compromised through counsel. There is a clear bar against him both under Section 11 of the C.P.C. and under Section 115 of the Evidence Act.
11. Resultantly, I dismiss the present revision with the observations that it will always be open to the petitioner to file a separate suit challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge and to the statements recorded by him during the pendency of the appeal. No costs.