JUDGMENT- R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioners (defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit) had filed an application on 5-11-1992 under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. in which it was prayed that this suit may be decreed in terms of compromise/agreement dated 23-4-1988. This application was dismissed by impugned order dated 16th September, 1993 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao and it is this order which is challenged in revision.

2.Learned Advocate Shri M.P. Almeida took me through the contents of the said compromise/agreement and submitted that the same is a concluded agreement and nothing more remained to be done by the parties; that whatever was left to be done under the said compromise/agreement could be subject-matter of execution; that the said compromise/agreement is not opposed by the opposite party on grounds of undue influence, fraud or plea of like nature; that the execution of the said compromise/agreement has not been denied by the parties and that in a suit for partition whatever was required to be done was done under the said compromise/agreement and nothing remained to be done any further. Relying upon a number of judgments of the Bombay High Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document