The principles of constructive res judicata govern applications under Order 23, Rule 3.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. These five consolidated miscellaneous appeals. arise out of the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, dated 3rd October, 1958, by which he dismissed the applications made by the appellants in five title suits under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, to record a compromise alleged to have been reached lawfully between the parties.

2. This is a second attempt by the appellants to obtain from the Court an order recording the alleged compromise.

3. These cases have a checkered career and afford a flagrant example how the otherwise salutary provisions of law, designed to promote justice, may be misused by the litigants, if they so will, to obstruct the course of justice and to prevent the speedy termination of the litigations. It is most unfortunate that the connected title suits instituted as far back as 1948 have not yet been disposed of.

It will be necessary to state here briefly the background of these applications under Order 23, Rule 3, to record the compromise. A batch of 246 title suits were instituted by different plaintiffs against the State of Bihar and others in 1948. In spite of the best efforts of the Court these cases could not be heard for nearly ten years. After several adjournments, for one reason or other, they were set down for hearing on 22-7-57. Two days before that date, i.e. on 20-7-57, the plaintiffs filed an application for adjournment on the ground of illness of the witnesses.

But, as it was expected, it was rejected by the Court. On 22-7-57 they filed another application for adjournment for two months on the ground that an amicable settlement bad been reached. It was alleged that Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh of Ramgarh and his representatives negotiated for a compromise with the State of Bihar, that a compromise had been arrived at in respect of almost all the suits, that the terms and conditions were confirmed by the Raja Bahadur and that a formal order from the State to file a joint petition of compromise would be soon received.

A copy of the terms of the agreement was also attached with the application. The lawyer representing the State was, however, ignorant of any such compromise and submitted before the Court that he had no such instruction from the Government Thereupon, the Court adjourned the hearing of the suits till 29-7-1957. On that date an application was filed on behalf of the State categorically denying the alleged compromise. On the same date the plaintiffs tiled applications under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code to record the compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith.

On 9-8-57 the plaintiffs filed several documents with a prayer that they be treated as part of the applications presented on 29-7-57 for recording the compromise. The Court wanted, naturally, to dispose of these applications as quickly as possible, and accordingly fixed 26-8-57 for the hearing, with a direction to the defendant to file a rejoinder if any, by 17-8-57. By this order the Court further specifically directed the parties that the compromise matter would be definitely and finally heard on 26-8-57 and that they should take all necessary steps within proper time.

They were further directed to take immediate steps if they wanted to examine any witness on commission or to call for any document or to summon any. witness. The State complied with the order of the Court and filed a rejoinder on 17-8-57 controverting the allegations of the plaintiffs and denying that a compromise had been reached. On that date the plaintiffs also filed a list of witnesses to be summoned and deposited the sum of Rs. 1000 on account of expenses for the witnesses and Rs. 36 on account of process fee for summoning the witnesses. The list of witnesses was a long list containing the names of 48 witnesses, including some Ministers, Secretariat Officers, Members of the legislative Assembly and Members of the Parliament who were either in Calcutta or at Patna or at New Delhi. T