Honble BHARGAVA, J.—This is a civil revision petition against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas dismissing the application of the petitioner under 0.23 R. 3 and refusing to record the compromise arrived at between the parties.

(2) Plaintiff petitioner had filed the present suit on 27.11.1989 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant non-petitioners restraining them from interfering with the coming and going in the way and that they should not construct any building so as to obstruct the way and further the obstruction which has been created by digging the foundation should be removed. The defendants filed the written statement on 4.12.1989 controverting the facts alleged by the plaintiff-petitioner and praying that the suit be dismissed. Even before the issues were framed plaintiff petitioner filed an application under 0.23 R. 3 read with section 151 CPC on 31.5.1990 praying that the parties had entered into a compromise on 29.11.1989 which was typed by the petition- writer and original of which was in the possession of the defendants which they have failed to produce in court and which is duly signed by the parties, who were identified by Shri Ummed Singh Chaudhary, Advocate. A copy duly signed by the parties which was in his possession was also produced along with the application and it was prayed that the decree be passed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

(3) Reply was filed to this application by the defendants on 10.7.1990 stating that no compromise ever took place between the parties nor they are aware of any compromise dated 29.11.1989. The plaintiff might have prepared so-called fabricated compromise by which the defendants are not bound if any compromise had been arrived at, it ought to have been filed in the court and duly verified. Since the plaintiffs have prepared a fabricated compromise he should be prosecuted for the offence. The learned trial court recorded the evidence of the parties. Plaintiff examined Shri Ummed Singh Chaudhary, Advocate (PW 1) on behalf of the defendants, Shri Hukam Chand (PW 2) a petition-writer who had typed the compromise deed. Shri Rati Ram Chaudhary Advocate (PW 3) on behalf of the plaintiff. Plaintiff examined himself as PW 4. Whereas the defendants have been examined himself as Ram Pal as (DW 1) and Shri Human Singh (DW 2) and Mularam (DW 3) who were mediators and responsible for the compromise between the parties. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments and considering the record of the case has come to the conclusion that some compromise was arrived at between the parties and they were willing for the compromise but when the defendants produced the compromise before the Reader of the court, the defendants resiled and were not willing to do the compromise nor abide by its conditions and therefore, he dismissed the application and refused to record the compromise. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the case in Govindarajan and others vs. K.A.N. Srinivasa Chetty and others (1), where in it has been observed that : —

"If a compromise was in fact arrived at though it may be voidable at the instance of one of the parties on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, when the compromise is filed under 0.23, R. 3 with a request to record the same by the opposite party, the court could not go into the question of fraud or undue influence.

(5). Their Lordships of the Madras High Court while making the above observations placed reliance on its earlier decisions and AIR 1975 SC 2202.

(6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on Bhaja Govinda Maikap and another vs. Janaki Devi and others (2), their Lordships after considering several authorities including AIR 1930 PC 158 has observed as under :—

"The words "where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document