Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6. The experience of the courts has been that on many occasions parties having filed petitions of compromise on basis of which decrees are prepared, later for one reason or other challenge the validity of such compromise. For setting aside such decrees suits used to be filed which dragged on for years including appeals to different courts. Keeping in view the predicament of the courts and the public, several amendments have been introduced in Order 23 of the Code which contain provisions relating to withdrawal and adjustment of suit by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code prescribes that at any time after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff may abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. Rule 1(3) provides that where the Court is satisfied (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject- matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. In view of Rule 1(4) if plaintiff abandons his suit or withdraws such suit without permission referred to above, he shall be precluded from instituting any such suit in respect of such subject-matter. Rule 3 of Order 23 which contained the procedure regarding compromise of the suit was also amended to curtail vexatious and tiring litigation while challenging a compromise decree. Not only in Rule 3 some special requirements were introduced before a compromise is recorded by the court including that the lawful agreement or a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties, a proviso with an explanation was also added which is as follows:

We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, (1993) 1 SCC 581, where also this Court had observed: (SCC p. 588, para 13) "13. ... As such a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to Order 23 Rule 3, or an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code, in which he can now question the validity of the compromise in view of Order 43 Rule 1-A of the Code."

15. Relying upon the above judgments, the Supreme Court further observed in R. Janakiammal case (supra) as under:

"53. Order 23 Rule 3 as well as Rule 3-A came for consideration before this Court in large number of cases and we need to refer to a few of them to find out the ratio of judgments of this Court in context of Rule 3 and Rule 3-A. In Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, (1993) 1 SCC 581, this Court considered Rule 3 as well as Rule 3-A of Order 23. This Court held that the object of the Amendment Act, 1976 is to compel the party challenging the compromise to question the court which has recorded the compromise. In paras 6 and 7, the following was laid down: (SCC pp. 584-85) "6. The experience of the courts has been that on many occasions parties having filed petitions of compromise on basis of which decrees are prepared, later for one reason or other challenge the validity of such compromise. For setting aside such decrees suits used to be filed which dragged on for years including appeals to different courts. Keeping in view the predicament of the courts and the public, several amendments have been introduced in Order 23 of the Code which contain provisions relating to withdrawal and adjustment of suit by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. Rule 1 Order 23 of the Code prescribes that at any time after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff may abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. Rule 1(3) provides that where the Court is satisfied: (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. In view of Rule 1(4) if the plaintiff abandons his suit or withdraws such suit without permission referred to above, he shall be precluded from instituting any such suit in respect of such subject-matter. Rule 3 Order 23 which contained the procedure regarding compromise of the suit was also amended to curtail vexatious and tiring litigation while challenging a compromise decree. Not only in Rule 3 some special requirements were introduced before a compromise is recorded by the court including that the lawful agreement or a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties, a proviso with an Explanation was also added which is as follows:

17. The conduct of Respondent 1/plaintiff in filing the suit, being Civil Suit No.20A of 2007 immediately after the order of compromise was passed and thereafter in filing the appeal, being Civil Appeal No.6A of 2007 shows that Respondent 1/plaintiff is vigilant about its case.

18. For the reasons discussed above, the present miscellaneous appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29.1.2008 passed by 14th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur allowing Civil Appeal No.6A of 2007 and setting aside the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by 8 th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.20A of 2007 is quashed and the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by 8th Civil Judge Class-II is hereby restored. However, it is made clear that no observation is being made by this Court on the merits of validity of the compromise decree. Therefore, Respondent 1/plaintiff, if so advised, may take legal recourse available to it under the law. If an application challenging the validity of the compromise decree is filed by Respondent 1/plaintiff before the concerned Court, the same shall be decided and disposed of on merits in accordance with law.