- (1.) The revision is against the order rejecting a petition filed under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order passed by the Court recording a statement of the first defendant who is the petitioner before the Court that he was willing to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 7,15,000/-, failing which, the plaintiff would be entitled to secure a decree for specific performance as sought for. After the Court obtained a statement, it proceeded to deliver a judgment on 05.08.2010 making reference to a statement of the party as the basis for passing the judgment in the manner he did. The petition has been filed under Section 151 CPC subsequently contending that his counsel had colluded with the other side and that he being illiterate did not know the effect of the statement that he had made in Court. The Court itself did not undertake the procedure as mandated under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and without a written compromise signed by the parties, it could not have passed the decree. The decree could not also exist without the terms of the settlement being put in writing and placed before the Court.
(2.) On dealing with the petition, the Court held that the statement of the petitioner had been recorded by the Court, which bore thumb impression of the party as well as the signatures of the counsel. The Court held that it would be impossible to accept a plea that he had not known what the Court was recording as his statement and dismissed the petition.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, 1988 1 SCC 270, to constitute an adjustment, the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in the decree and when the parties entered into a compromise during the hearing of the suit, there was no reason why the requirement of the compromise to be reduced in writing in the form of an instrument signed by the parties should be dispensed with. The Supreme Court held that a Court would, therefore, insist the parties to reduce the terms into writing and in the absence of such agreement in writing there shall be no lawful compromise. A decision of this Court in Shri Santan Dharam Sabha v. Basant Lal Gulati and others, 1991 1 RRR 153 was also cited to contend that the compromise must be in writing and the statements of parties and their counsel recorded would not be sufficient in compliance of the Order 23 Rule 3. The case was holding so by referring a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel referred to above.;