J.V. Gupta,J. - (1.) This revision petition has arisen but of a suit for specific performance.
(2.) The case of the Plaintiff -Respondent herein was that he had paid Rs. 40,000/ - by way of earnest money for the purchase of the property. When the suit had reached the stage of arguments, the learned Counsel for the parties on March 27, 1982, made the following statement before the Court, which was duly recorded on the said date; Statement of counsel for the parties. The parties have compromised. The Defendants shall pay Rs. 22,000/ - to the Plaintiff. The suit for the Plaintiff may accordingly be decreed and rest of his claim may be dismissed. The Defendants shall deposit the money in Court on 15 -6 -1982. In case he fails to deposit the money in the Court on 15 -6 -1982, then he would be liable to pay Rs. 40,000/ - to the Plaintiff. RO & AC Sd/ - Dated 27 -3 -1982 Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepore. In view of the aforesaid statement, the Court on that date, in the presence of the counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order, which reads as follows: Present: Counsel for the parties. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for specific performance. The case was fixed for evidence of the Defendants when on 27 -3 -1982 the parties effected a compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties the suit is decreed to the effect that the Defendants shall pay Rs. 22,000/ - to the Plaintiff. The said amount shall be deposited in the Court on or before 15 -6 -1982. In case they fail to deposit the said amount by the said date the Plaintiff would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/ - Parties are left to bear their own costs of the suit in view of compromise. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room. Dated: Sd/ - 27 -3 -1982 Addl. Senior Sub -Judge, Ferozepore. Against the above said order, the Defendant filed the present revision petition which was ultimately dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on reference, vide order dated May 3, 1983. The said judgment is now reported as Manohar Lal v/s. Surjan Singh 1983 P.L.J. 402. Aggrieved against the said judgment of the Division Bench, the Defendants went to the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition which was allowed vide order dated July 29, 1988, which reads as under: Special leave granted and the appeal is disposed of by order herein. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the appropriate order would be to set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for re consideration of the matter in the light of the observations of this Court in Gurpreet Singh v/s. Chatur Bhuj Goel : (1988) 94 P.L.R. 365. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Now, this revision petition has come up for hearing in view of the remand order passed by the Supreme Court.
(3.) In Gurpreet Singh v/s. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988) 94 P.L.R. 365 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has specifically considered Manohar Lal's case (supra) in paragraph 11 of the report which reads as under: In our considered opinion, the view to the contrary expressed by the High Court in Manohar Lal and Anr. v/s. Surjan Singh, 1983 Punj. L.J 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, C.J , 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 arty part of the subject -matter of the suit. Such a restricted construction is not warranted by the language used in Rule 3. The word '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, Rule 3 of the Code. It is, therefore, evident that the view taken by this Court earlier in this case while deciding the revision petition vide order dated May 3, 1983, was not held to be correct That being so, the revision petition is liable to be accepted in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment wherein it has been held that the Court must insist upon the parties to reduce the terms of the compromise, in writing. It should be signed by the parties and it should be a complete agreement.;