A compromise which depends on the result of an enquiry as to whether subsequent to the agreement certain acts have been done in pursuance thereof is not an adjustment of the suit within the meaning of Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code.

( 1 ) IN this petition, a revision of the order of the District Munsif, guntur, dismissing a petition under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to reject the compromise filed into Court by the parties is sought. The facts material for the present enquiry are these :"a suit was filed against the petitioner on a promissory note executed by him in favour of the plaintiff s son on the 28th of February, 1951, for Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff is a transferee for collection. The defence was that the promissory note was not supported by consideration, that it was executed as a security for a monthly payment of Rs. 5 which he agreed to make to the minor son of the Village Munsif for his having been allowed to act as the deputy of the minor. During the trial and after the evidence of the defendant was recorded he suggested that he would deposit the money in the temple of Sri Tripurasundaramma Varu at Thadepalle and that the original promisee should take it in the presence of the deity. Having regard to the question involved in this petition, it is convenient to set out in extenso the terms of the memorandum of the compromise filed into Court by the parties : 2. The defendant shall get ready the amount in suit and costs within fifteen days from now that is on or before 28th August, 1954, and deposit the amount with the defendant s vakil Sri Thumuluru nagabhushanam garu. 3. A memo, stating that the money has been deposited with him shall be filed into Court by the defendant s vakil. Within one week from the date on which the memo, is filed the plaintiff s son sitaramabrahmam shall take the amount in the presence of the deity Sri Tripurasundaramma varu in the temple at Thadepalle. The defendant shall arrange to send the amount to the temple. 4. If after the defendant s vakil files a memo, into Court, the plaintiff s son does not agree to take the amount in the temple, the plaintiff s suit shall be dismissed with costs of the defendant. 5. If as mentioned above the defendant s vakil does not file a memo, by 28th August, 1954. stating that he has got the money with him the plaintiff s suit shall be decreed with costs. Both parties having agreed to the above items, they pray that the same may be recorded by this court. "then, there is the endorsement of the Court thus : " Terms read over and consented to by the parties who signed along with their vakils. Call on 31st August, 1954. "

( 2 ) TEN days thereafter, the application giving rise to this Civil Revision Petition was filed with the allegations that the applicant was anxious that plaintiff s son should not incur divine displeasure by taking the money in the way indicated in the memorandum of compromise and that further such a compromise was an illegal and invalid one and could not be enforced. This was opposed by the respondent-plaintiff. The application was rejected by the District Munsif who opined that if the plaintiff s son was prepared to take the amount in the presence of the deity it was his look-out and that the defendant need not exhibit any concern over the matter and that there was no substance in the plea relating to the invalidity.

( 3 ) IN this petition, it is urged by Mr. Ramanarasu that the compromise in question does not fall within the purview of Order 23, rule 3 and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer in the petition. According to the learned counsel in order to constitute an adjustment within the meaning of Order 23, rule 3, Civil procedure Code, the parties should agree upon some terms concerning the subject-matter of the suit which could be embodied in the decree on the strength of which the suit could be given a disposal. But, in a case where the nature of the decree to be passed depended upon the result of an enquiry as to whether subsequent to the agreement certain acts have been done in pursuance thereof, it could not be said to have been adjusted so as to attract the provisions of Order 23, rule 3, Civil procedure Code. In such a situation, it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document