Back
High Court Of Delhi
KRISHAN MOHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
CHAND GUPTA - Respondent
First Appeal Order 2 of 1992
Decided On : 03/17/1993
COMPROMISE - ORDER 23 RULE 3 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - WRITTEN INSTRUMENT - STATEMENTS MADE BY PARTIES AND RECORDED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND SIGNED BY PARTIES - CONSTITUTE WRITTEN INSTRUMENT OF COMPROMISE - CAN BE ACTED UPON UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for injunction, the parties entered into a compromise in writing and signed by them, which was recorded in the Court proceedings. The Additional District Judge, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Gael, recalled the order passed on the basis of the compromise, holding that there must be a separate instrument of agreement duly signed by the parties before the same could be acted upon under Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the statements made by the parties and recorded in the Court proceedings and signed by the parties could meet with the requirements of Order 23. Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code which contemplate an agreement or compromise in writing signed by the parties. The Court interpreted the word "instrument" to include the proceedings recorded in Court which are signed by the parties.
Issues: Whether the statements made by the parties and recorded in the Court proceedings and signed by the parties could meet with the requirements of Order 23. Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code which contemplate an agreement or compromise in writing signed by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the word "instrument" by itself would not mean that a separate instrument should be executed. The proceedings recorded in Court which are signed by the parties can be also termed as an instrument in writing. The Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the statements made in the judicial proceedings were not signed by the parties and thus, on the basis of it, the said statements could not constitute a compromise made in writing but where the statements have been made in Court proceedings and have been duly signed by the parties and their Counsel there is no reason why such a writing should not be termed as an instrument as was visualised by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the order made by the Additional District Judge on the basis of the compromise.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of anadditional District Judge dated 21/09/1991 by which he had recalledthe previous order made on the basis of the statements made by the partiesin Court.
( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that Sri Chand Gupta, respondent No. 1, hadbrought a suit for injunction against the appellant taking the plea that he isthe tenant in the premises in question and the appellant is threatening toraise unauthorised constructions which would effect his demised premises. Atemporary injunction was granted by the Lower Court and appeal wasbrought against that order which came up for hearing before Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge.
( 3 ) ON 16/07/1988, a joint statement of Shri J. K. Seth, Advocatefor the appellant and Shri J. K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents, Sri Chandgupta, Chand Narain Pandey and Narinder Singh and of Sri Chand, respondent No. 1, and Krishan Mohan Singh, appellant, was recorded which isto the following effect :
"the matter has been settled. In shop No. 1402, Bazar Guliandariba Kalan, Delhi, the tenants are Sh. Naresh Chand andjaswant Singh, sons of Shri Chand Gupta. The landlord is Krishan Mohan Singh. The landlord has no objection if the father of thetenants mentioned above in the said shop uses the said shop as alicensee of the tenants. However, the landlord does not permitany other relative of the tenants including their any other brotherto use the property and if the same is used by any other person orbrothers of the tenants, the landlord will have the right to seekeviction on any of the grounds contemplated under the Delhi Rentcontrol Act, 1958. The appeals be allowed and the plaintiffs Sri Chand Gupta, S. Narinder Singh and Chand Narain Pandey withdraw their suits. In case of Chand Narain Pandey, it is not disputed that Angan Lalwas also a tenant with Chhotey Lal. Angan Lal has died and histenancy rights could be inherited by the heirs. So far as the case of S. Narinder Singh is concerned, his fatherdarshan Singh was the tenant and his heirs have inherited the rightsof tenancy. "
( 4 ) THESE statements were signed by the appellant and Sri Chandgupta and also their respective Counsel. Sh. J. K. Seth and Sh. J. K. Jain. On the basis of the said statements, the order dated July 19, 1988 was madeand appeal was disposed of. There were two other appeals which were alsodecided alongwith this order with which we are not concerned.
( 5 ) SRI Chand Gupta had moved a petition before the Additionaldistrict Judge for recalling the order taking various pleas and by theimpugned order, the said petition of Sri Chand Gupta was accepted.
( 6 ) THE learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order, hasprimarily based his order on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Courtin the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Gael, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 400 and has held that there must be a separate instrument of agreement dulysigned by the parties before the same could be acted upon under Order 23rule 3 C. P. C.
( 7 ) THE Order 23, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code lays down that where it is proved tothe satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part byany lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, thecourt shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. However, if an agreementor compromise is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872the same will not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.
( 8 ) THE short question which arises for decision is whether the statements which are made by the parties and recorded in the Court s proceedingsand are signed by the parties could meet with the requirements of Order 23. Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code which contemplate an agreement or compromise in writingsigned by the parties.
( 9 ) IN the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), the statements were madeand recorded in the judicial proceedings but were not signed by the parties. The question which arose for decision b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
