SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(P&H) 362

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi, J.
Dr.Madan Gopal
Versus
Din Dayal
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 3585/C-II of 1986,3586/C-II of 1986,3587/C-II of 1986,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 1986

A compromise entered into in a representative suit without the leave of the court is void ab initio.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - O.XXIII, R.3B - REPRESENTATIVE SUIT - COMPROMISE - LEAVE OF COURT - VOID AGREEMENT - RESTORATION OF REVISION PETITION - FRAUD - CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS - RECALL OF ORDER - REINSTATEMENT OF REVISION PETITION.

Fact of the Case:

A revision petition was filed by the landlord against the tenant for ejectment. During the pendency of the revision petition, the landlord died and his son, Virender Pal Bhardwaj, was substituted as the legal representative. Virender Pal Bhardwaj entered into a compromise with the tenant without the knowledge of his sister, Bimla Devi, who was also a legal representative of the deceased landlord. Bimla Devi filed a petition to recall the order of substitution and the order of dismissal of the revision petition, alleging fraud and concealment of material facts.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the compromise entered into between Virender Pal Bhardwaj and the tenant was void ab initio as it was entered into without the leave of the court and without making Bimla Devi a party to the proceedings. The court also held that the order of substitution and the order of dismissal of the revision petition were obtained by fraud and concealment of material facts.

Issues: 1. Whether the compromise entered into between Virender Pal Bhardwaj and the tenant was valid? 2. Whether the order of substitution and the order of dismissal of the revision petition were obtained by fraud and concealment of material facts?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order XXIII, Rule 3B of the Civil Procedure Code provides that no agreement or compromise in a representative suit shall be entered into without the leave of the court. The compromise entered into between Virender Pal Bhardwaj and the tenant was a representative suit as it would bind Bimla Devi, who was also a legal representative of the deceased landlord. Since the compromise was entered into without the leave of the court, it was void ab initio. 2. The order of substitution and the order of dismissal of the revision petition were obtained by fraud and concealment of material facts. Virender Pal Bhardwaj concealed the fact that Bimla Devi was also a legal representative of the deceased landlord and that she was not a party to the compromise.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition filed by Bimla Devi and recalled the order of substitution and the order of dismissal of the revision petition. The revision petition was restored to its original number and Bimla Devi and Virender Pal Bhardwaj were made co-petitioners in the main case.

Judgment

1. These miscellaneous applications have a background which is summarised hereafter.

2. There is a small shop on the Railway Road, Ambala City in the tenancy of Din Dayal respondent. It was owned by Dr. Madan Gopal. The settled rent was Rs. 15/- per mensem. Dr. Madan Gopal filed ejectment proceedings against the tenant on some grounds which are not relevant for the present purposes. He was unsuccessful in the first two Courts. Availing the law as it then stood, he filed a revision petition in the Court of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was admitted. By the change of law, the revision petition was transferred to this Court was numbered as Civil Revision No. 1382 of 1979. During the pendency thereof, Dr. Madan Gopal died on 25-2-1981. Within a month thereof on 23-3-1981, Virender Pal Bhardwaj respondent No. 2 moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1185-CII of 1981 seeking relief under O.XXII, R.3, Civil P.C., for being substituted/impleaded as a petitioner to the Civil Revision Petition. The averment in support thereof was that on the death of Dr. Madan Gopal, he was the sole legal representative left behind, being the only son. The said Civil Miscellaneous Application was allowed on 25-3-1981 supported, as it is, by an affidavit of Virender Pal Bhardwaj. Close to the heels of his being substituted as legal representative of Dr. Madan Gopal, the substituted petitioner Virender Pal Bhardwaj entered into a compromise with the tenant. Din Dayal on 21-4-1981. Thus, he moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1558-CII of 1981 in this Court by filing the Compromise Deed, duly supported by his own affidavit as also the affidavit of Din Dayal. In terms thereof, the rent was increased from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 40.00 per mensem and the tenant was permitted to make necessary repairs in the shop as these were termed to be minor repairs and the shop was conceded to be otherwise fit for human habitation. To support the petition, Virender Pal Bhardwaj appeared in person before J.M. Tandon J. and in the presence of the counsel for the tenant, the Revision Petition was dismissed as with drawn on the placement of the Compromise Deed on the file vide order dated 23-4-1981. The proceedings thus came to an end.

3. The present petition has been filed by Smt. Bimla Devi claiming herself to be the sole legal representative of Dr. Madan Gopal contending that the dismissal of the Revision Petition as withdrawn was on the basis of a fraud committed on false affidavits and concealing from the Court that she alone, being the daughter, was the sole legatee under a registered will executed by Dr. Madan Gopal. The relief sought is that the order dated 25-3-1981 permitting Virender Pal Bhardwaj to be impleaded as the sole legal representative and the order dated 23-4-1981 dismissing the revision petition as withdrawn be recalled and she be substituted as the legal representative.

4. Replies have been filed to the application by both the respondents. Virender Pal Bhardwaj has not the courage to deny that the present applicant is his sister. He does not deny the existence of the registered will in her favour but has otherwise raised the contention that the will is not valid. Undisputably, civil litigation is going on between the brother and the sister about the estate of Dr. Madan Gopal which includes the ownership dispute about the premises in question in the instant litigation also. The tenant of course has taken the plea that he entered into the compromise bona fide believing that Virender Pal Bhardwaj was the sole legal representative of the deceased landlord and the question of any collusion between them did not arise.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is crystal clear that the present applicant, keeping the question of the will apart, was a legal representative of the deceased Dr. Madan Gopal and in all events the averment of Virender Pal Bhardwaj before this Court that he was the sole legal representative of the decease







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top