- (1.) WHEN interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2986 of 2012 is taken up, request has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties to take up the main petition for final disposal. Petitioners, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.9.2009, passed by the learned Sub -Judge -II, Daltonganj, Palamau, in Title Suit No. 28/97, whereby the learned court -below did not record the compromise entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9/ respondent No.11 herein and has rejected the petition dated 21.8.2009, filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners for recording statement of the parties to the compromise entered on 20.7.2009.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents and perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record. It appears that plaintiffs have instituted title suit in the year 1997 and thereafter the suit could not be proceeded on account of the conduct, which has been mentioned/ reflected in the order passed by the court -below. It further appears that requisite court fees has been deposited by the plaintiffs in the year 2012 and thereafter the matter was kept for the purpose of framing of issues and at this particular stage, an application was submitted by the plaintiffs for recording of compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 as also for taking oral evidence of plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 with regard to contents of the compromise. Learned court -below after recording the conduct of the plaintiffs as also on examination of the facts of the case reached to the conclusion that compromise arrived at and entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.9 cannot be recorded at this juncture and it can be recorded only after framing of issues so that the contents of the compromise can be properly verified at the time of recording of evidence. Looking to the nature of the suit, it appears that the view taken by the learned court -below is in accordance with law because no court can be compelled to record the compromise entered into between the parties unless the court has satisfaction about the contents of the compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring Order -23 Rule -3 of the CPC pointed out that the provisions contained in this Order is very clear that the court -below is duty bound to accept or refuse the compromise submitted by the parties and put it on record. On perusal of the order passed by the court -below, it appears that after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned court -below has passed the order of refusal at this juncture with regard to compromise entered into between the parties; however, at the same point of time, the learned court - below made it very clear that the compromise can be recorded after examination of defendant No.9.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the following judgments: (i) AIR 1955 Patna 243; (ii) AIR 1969 Guj. 76; (iii) AIR 2000 SC 2757.;