Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Gurpreet Singh vs Chatur Bhuj Goel on 15 December, 1987 cites

Manohar Lal And Anr. vs Surjan Singh And Anr. on 3 May, 1983

In our considered opinion, the view to the contrary expressed by the High Court in Manohar Lal & Anr. v. Surjan Singh & Anr., [1983] Punj. LJ 402 that the first part relates to a lawful agreement or compromise arrived at by the parties out of Court, does not seem to be correct. Sandhawalia, CJ speaking for himself and Tewatia, J. observes that the word 'or' makes the two parts disjunctive and they visualise two distinct and separate classes of compromise. According to the learned Judges, the first part relates to a lawful agreement or compromise arrived at by the parties out of Court, while the second is applicable where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit. Such a restricted construction is not warranted by the language used in r. 3. The word 409 'satisfies' denotes satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff wholly or in part, and for this there need not be an agreement in writing signed by the parties. It is open to the defendant to prove such satisfaction by the production of a receipt or payment through bank or otherwise. The satisfaction of the claim could also be established by tendering of evidence. It is for the Court to decide the question upon taking evidence or by affidavits as to whether there has in fact been such satisfaction of the claim and pass a decree in accordance with order XXIII, r. 3 of the Code.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1