B.S.Dhillon, J. - (1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this case are that the land in dispute was taken on lease by the Plaintiff to hold Ramlila on a yearly rent of Rs. 500. It was averred that the Defendants and their Karindas wanted to dispossess the Plaintiff forcibly from the suit land and thus relief by way of issuance of permanent injunction was sought. During the pendency of the suit, on September 22, 1977, Bahadur Chand, Managing Director, Jai Bajrang Kala Maridir, Hansi, Plaintiff, along with his counsel Shri I. D. Hans made a statement that if defendant No. 1 makes a statement in the Court that receipts dated October 26, 1974, and October 9, 1975, were not issued by her, the suit of the Plaintiff may be dismissed and, otherwise, it be decreed. Shri D. C. Sharma, counsel for the Defendants, on the same date accepted this offer and the case was adjourned to September 24, 1977, for the statement of Defendant No. 1. On that date, Defendant No. 1 appeared but before her statement could be recorded, the Plaintiff made an application withdrawing the offer. However, the statement of Defendant No. 1 was recorded, but the trial Court ultimately held that the offer having been withdrawn before the recording of the statement, the Plaintiff was entitled to have the suit decided on merits. Consequently, the Defendants came up in revision against this order.
(2.) THE revision petition came up for hearing before S. P. Goyal, J. on September 14, 1978, who referred the case to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict in the cases decided by this Court referred to in the reference order. The case was then listed for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of S.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and I. S. Tiwana, J., on September 27, 1979, when their Lordships referred this case to a larger Bench, as it was argued that a Division Bench in Thakur Singh and Ors. v. Inder Singh. : A.I.R. 1976 P&H 287, did not lay down the correct law. This is how this case has been placed before the Full Bench. As will be apparent from the facts of the case the important question of law which needs determination in this revision petition is whether a party who offers to be bound by the statement of any of the opposite parties, cannot resile from such an offer after the other party has agreed to make such statement unless there be sufficient cause shown to the satisfaction of the Court for allowing the offer to be withdrawn.
(3.) ON first principle, it appears that where an agreement is made between the parties to abide by the statement of a person, it cannot be said that it is not a valid agreement enforceable by the Court except when there are sufficient reasons for resiling from it, in which case the Court may allow one of the parties to resile from the agreement.;