A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree of the court below in Appeal No.61 of 1988 decided on 31.5.1988 whereby the Suit has been disposed of in terms of the Compromise Paper No.39-A-1 dated 17.2.1988 and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 18.2.1988 has been reversed holding that the trial court committed a manifest error by not proceeding to treat the application dated 17.2.1988 as a compromise and had erroneously travelled beyond the scope of Order-XXIII to decide the Suit on merits treating the said document only as an admission.
(2.) The plaintiff is in Second Appeal before this Court. The appeal has remained pending for admission since 1988 and was heard on 13.12.2012 by this Court whereupon learned counsel Sri D.S.M. Tripathi has proceeded to address the Court contending that the lower appellate court has committed a manifest illegality by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court on erroneous assumptions of law, namely that the document in question was only a piece of admission and could not be treated as a compromise under Order 23. He has relied upon the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 coupled with the decision in the case of Jineshwardas (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Jagrani, AIR 2003 SC 4596 , decided by the Apex Court on 26.9.2003 wherein it has been held that a judgment or a decree passed as a result of consensus cannot always be said to be on the basis of a compromise or settlement/adjustment, and at times may be a judgment on the basis of an admission as in the present case. He, therefore, submits that the said proposition of law raises a substantial question of law and, therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court deserves to be set aside.
(3.) I have heard Sri D.S.M. Tripathi and I have perused the said document which has been described as a piece of admission by the learned counsel for the appellant. It forms part of the Decree. The entire application dated 17.2.1988 which has undisputedly been signed and verified by the parties runs into 5 paragraphs followed by a prayer to terminate the proceedings of the Suit accordingly. The first paragraph recites that the parties to the Suit have resolved their dispute (Maslahat) on the intervention of some reputed persons of the locality. The second paragraph recites that the plaintiff is recognised as the President of the Society. The third paragraph recites that the proceedings of contempt initiated shall stand terminated. The fourth paragraph recites that parties to the Suit shall bear their own costs and the fifth paragraph categorically recites that this compromise (Samjhauta) will form part of the decree. The prayer clause in reference to the said 5 paragraphs makes a request to the court to terminate the proceedings accordingly.;