Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Mr.Pradip Kr.Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiffs deals with the point raised in reply. He relies on Shyam Sundar Chaudhury Vs. Judhistir Jena reported in AIR 1983 Orissa 187 to emphasise, the decision expressed view that the amendment was clarificatory. There thus could not be any change in the position of law interpreted and expressed in earlier judgments. It only resolved conflict of views by clarification. On Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh [ (2006) 5 SCC 566 ] he submits, the second point that was dealt with in paragraphs 18 and 19, relied upon by Mr.Mookherjee, was whether the compromise was not a valid compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. In answering the point Supreme Court took into account the clarification made by the amendment. He then relies on view expressed by a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court in Rajiv Saluja Vs. Bhartia Industries Ltd. reported in 2002 (64) DRJ 569 [ decided on 7th May, 2002], paragraphs 9 and 10 to emphasise, his client had specifically pleaded in the plaint, consideration by forbearance by not pressing with claim for term of agreement in the compromise, not relating to the suit, regarding proposed race. According to him, those facts stand proved on admissions implied from pleadings.
(2.) Lastly, he relies on view expressed by a learned single Judge of High Court of Judicature of Madras in Appeal 23 of 1979, dated 28th November, 1983 (Jeevanandam Vs. American Advent Mission School, Madras), paragraph 16, in relation to admission on question of damages with regard to Rule 3 in Order 8. He concludes his submissions.
(3.) Mr.Dhrubo Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of defendant submits, in paragraphs 50 and 51(e) there is specific denial of case made out in paragraph 44 of the plaint. Hearing is concluded. ;