- (1.) Following three questions have arisen in this petition for adjudication, namely:- (i) An issue as to whether the suit is barred by law can be treated a preliminary issue (ii) Whether a compromise reduced in writing and signed by the counsel for the party is legal (iii) If a party to the compromise is not satisfied with the compromise, whether the remedy is to file an application in the same suit, decreed on the basis of compromise
(2.) The brief facts of the case, as narrated before me, are that one Tek Chand Jain was survived by his wife Savitri Devi, four sons namely, Sital Parkash, Narinder Kumar, Tribhawan Nath, Jawahar Lal and a daughter Pushpawati. The family was in litigation, culminated into three appeals pending before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur bearing Civil Appeal No.210 of 1994 titled as "Sital Parkash Jain Vs. M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath and others", Civil Appeal No.2000 of 1994 titled as "Sital Parkash Jain Vs. M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath and others" and Civil Appeal No.209 of 1994 titled as "Satya Devi Vs. M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath and others" A Civil Suit No.262 of 1989 was also filed by Sital Parkash Jain against six defendants including his mother Savitri Devi for possession of 1/8 share of a triple storied house. A compromise was effected between the parties in Appeal No.210 of 1994 on 24.3.1998 and on the same day, statements were suffered by Narinder Kumar, Jawahar Lal, Sital Parkash and Tribhavan Nath Jain all sons of Tek Chand Jain and also by K.K. Sharma Advocate, who had been appearing in Civil Suit filed by Sital Parkash Jain on behalf of Savitri Devi, in which she was arrayed as defendant No.5. The statements recorded on 24.3.1998 read as under: - "Statements of Shri Sital Parkash Jain son of Shri Tek Chand Jain r/o Sitla Street, Hoshiarpur appellant in Civil Appeal No.210/94, titling Sital Parkash Jain Vs. M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath etc. and also attorney of Smt. Satya Devi in Civil appeal No.209/94, Satya Devi Vs. M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath and attorney of Satya Devi in cross-objection titling Satya Devi Vs. M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath etc. on S.A. and that of Shri Jawahar Lal s/o Sh. Tek Chand resident of Sitla Street, Hoshiarpur on behalf of M/s Mela Mal Amar Nath respondent No.1 and for himself in all the above cases on S.A. and also that of Sh. Narinder Kumar Jain son of Shri Tek Chand Jain r/o 107 Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana on S.A. and counsel for parties in the appeals and in the suit pending in the court of Sh. Jaspal Verma, Hoshiarpur. All the above-mentioned appeals pending in this Court (Shri H.P. Handa, Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur) and the Civil Suit pending in the court of Shri Jaspal Verma, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur should be treated to have been disposed of in accordance with this compromise and that we have no objection for the same. We have arrived at this compromise Ex.CX with the intervention of relatives and respectable. We have settled the matter and settlement has been reduced in the form of compromise Ex.CX. Site plans have been placed as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. We are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise Ex.CX and the site plans referred to above. Two appeals and one cross-objection be disposed of accordingly by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. We have admitted the above terms and conditions of this compromise Ex.CX and the same have been read over to which we have appended our signatures after admitting its contents to be correct. RO & AC sd/- Narinder Kumar, Jawahar Lal, Sd/- (Tribhavan Nath Jain) K.K. Sharma, Adv. (Sital parkash Jain)"
(3.) The learned Appellate Court passed the order on 24.03.1998 on the basis of the statements. The order reads as under:- "In view of the statement of the parties recorded separately and the terms and conditions of the compromise deed Ex.CX and the site plan Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. All the parties would be bound by the statements made in the Court and also the terms and conditions of the compromise deed referred to above which should be a part of the order. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Lower Court record be returned. File be consigned.";