DWARKA PRASAD, J.—The question raised in this appeal is as to whether a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 C. P. C. should be signed by the party as well as by his counsel and a compromise petition, signed by the Advocate for the party only and not by the party himself, would not form a valid basis for a compromise decree under Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of the amendment in the provisions of Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 and on account of the addition of the words "in writing and signed by the parties" in the aforesaid provision, a lawful agreement or compromise, before it can be given effect to by the court by recording the same under Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. should be signed by the party himself and such a compromise petition cannot be acted upon by the Court, if it is signed merely by the Advocate for that party.

3. The provisions of Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C , as they now stand after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976, are as under:—

"Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit;

Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question, but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.

Explanation:— An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the addition of the words "in writing and signed by the parties" in the aforesaid provision, by way of amendment, signify that the compromise should not only be in writing but it should be signed by the parties personally. I am afraid learned counsel is trying to add the word personally to the words "in writing and signed by the parties", which have been added to the provisions of Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976, while the word personally does not appear even in the amended provisions of Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. There is apparently no basis for the submission that reference to the parties in the aforesaid provision should be construed as meaning parties personally and the signatures of the parties themselves would be essential before a compromise petition could be given effect to by the court under the provisions of Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C.

5. It is settled law that an Advocate, who is duly authorised and empowered to appear on behalf of the party, has the implied or inherent authority to enter in to a compromise on behalf of the party. The authority of the counsel to enter into a compromise emanates from the provisions of O. 3 rule 1 and Order 3 rule 4 C. P. C. and there is nothing in Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. to affect the authority or the right of the counsel to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client. The only change which has been effected, on account of the amendment introduced in Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 is that the compromise should now necessarily be in writing and it should be signed by the parties, which expression includes the Advocates for the parties as well. The malady which the legislature desired to remedy by introducing the words "in writing and signed by the parties in Order 23 rule 3 C. P. C. was to avoid the setting up of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document