The Trial Court must ascertain the authenticity of a settlement before dismissing a suit, failing which the order lacks merit.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Trial Court in MISC. DJ 559/2017 arising out of Civil Suit No. 12767/2026, titled as, Om Prakash Sharma vs. Sunita Sharma Sharma.

2. Petitioners are the defendants before the learned Trial Court in the civil suit for partition, possession and declaration filed by the respondent No. 1. The limited point of contention in the present petition relates to the order dated 21.04.2022, passed by the Trial Court, whereby the suit filed by respondent No. 1 has been restored to its original number.

3. By order dated 30.08.2017, the suit was dismissed as withdrawnby respondent No. 1 with liberty to file a separate suit on the same cause of action in the event the petitioners (defendants in the Trial Court) fail to make the payment in accordance with the terms of compromise. The respective statements of the petitioners and the respondents were recorded before passing the aforesaid order.

4. Subsequently, an application dated 27.09.2017 under Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent seeking review of the order dated 30.08.2017 and for revival of suit, contending that the counsel of respondent No. 1 had settled the matter without authorisation and has also caused the statement of respondent recorded. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application list the grounds for filing the review and are reproduced thus:-

“ 3. That on the last date of hearing i.e 30.08.2017 the counsel for the Plaintiff by misrepresenting the facts got recorded the statement of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff got settled the matter with the Defendant No. l and 2 as the Plaintiff will receive the amount of Rs. 21,25,000/· from Defendant No. 1 and 2 which will be paid by the Defendant No. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff as·50% amount will be paid in 45 days and balance will be paid in eight months and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. That soon after when the Plaintiff asked his counsel that what he has done and why the statement has been got recorded as the Plaintiff was not inclined to settle the matter that too on receiving amount as the plaintiff has always sought share in the suit property as the Plaintiff is fighting the case for more than 10 years and even in mediation earlier the matter could not be settled and now when the stage was on final stages as defendant witnesses were being examined and short dates were being given, the Plaintiff in no manner could have settled the matter. ”

5. Predicated on the aforesaid averments alongwith the assertion that respondent No. 1 has proceeded against the previous counsel by filing complaint against him on 14.09.2017 in the Bar Association Office and with Tis Hazari Courts, Chowki Incharge and also with BarCouncil of Delhi on 15.09.2017, respondent No. 1 sought review of the order dated 30.08.2017.

6. Based on the aforesaid contentions, the impugned order dated21.04.2022 was passed by the Trial Court primarily holding that it would be futile for the Court to examine the veracity of the allegations of the respondent No.1 that the compromise was recorded without authorisation or the respondents were misled by their counsel, especially when the Bar Council is already ceased of the matter. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.04.2022 is extracted below:-

“This court is of the considered opinion that it will be exercise in futility to find out the truth in the allegations when Bar Council is already ceased with the matter. Moreover, the plaintiff has not accepted the settled amount.

Considering the fact that when the impugned compromise took place, the matter was at the stage of defence evidence. Further, this is a suit for partition, possession, declaration alongwith permanent injunction. Without going into the allegations made by the plaintiff against his counsel, it will be appropriate to proceed with the matter on merits.

In these circumstances, review application is allowed and the order da