Decided on December 06,1951

Andhuram Appellant
Sobharam Haloi And Another Respondents


Ram Labhaya, J. - (1.)THIS petition of revision is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, L. A. D. dated 24th March 1951, by which the order of the Munsiff of Gauhati destining to record what was described as a compromise, under O. 23 R. 3, Civil P.C., was affirmed.
(2.)ON 17th January 1950, the parties were present in Court. Plaintiffs were ready with witnesses. The defendant petitioned to the Court that the matter had been compromised and requested that the compromise or the adjustment be recorded under O. 23, R. 3. He relied on an agreement of reference Exh. I and an award (Exh. II). His case was that in pursuance of the agreement of reference the Panchayat gave an award Exh. II. This award he contended, amounted to an adjustment which could be recorded under O. 23, R. 3, The plaintiffs denied having entered into any agreement of reference and further pleaded that they had no knowledge of the award. They further urged, that the so -called adjustment embodied in Ex. II, could not be treated as a compromise or adjustment for purposes of O. 23. R. 3 without their consent, in any case.
The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the award was not consented to by the plaintiffs. They have also found that the signatures of the plaintiffs on the agreement of reference had been obtained either by pressure or by some promise which remained unfulfilled. The finding arrived at in the Courts below is that even as regards the agreement there was no consensus of will. In consequence the alleged adjustment has not been recorded.

(3.)IN this revision petition, it has first been urged on behalf of the defendant that Exh. II, the document on which the defendant relied, was an award of the arbitrators duly made in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the plaintiffs and being an award it could be recorded as an adjustment under O. 23, R. 3.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.