The requirement of being in writing and signed by the parties under O.23, R.3 of O.23 applies only to agreements or compromises for the adjustment of the suit, and not to the satisfaction of the plaintiff by the defendant in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The true import of O.23, R.3. Civil P.C., in the context of a satisfaction of the plaintiff by the defendant in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit rested on the statement of the respective counsel of the parties in Court, is the spinal question which necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.

2. The issue aforesaid arises out of a suit for specific performance. The case of the plaintiff-respondent herein was that he had paid Rs. 40,000.00 by way of earnest money for the purchase of the property. When the suit had reached the stage of arguments the learned counsel for the parties on March 21, 1982, made the following statement before the Court, which was duly recorded on the said date :-

"Statement of counsel for the parties. The parties have compromised. The defendants shall pay Rs. 22,000.00 to the plaintiff. The suit for the plaintiff may accordingly be decreed and rest of his claim may be dismissed. The defendants shall deposit the money in Court on 15-6-1982. In case he fails to deposit the money in the Court on 15-6-1982, then he would be liable to pay Rs. 40,000.00 to the plaintiff. RO and AC Sd/- Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepore."

Dated 27-3-1982 In accordance with the aforesaid statement, the court on that date in the presence of the counsel for the parties, recorded the undermentioned order:-

Present : Counsel for the parties.

The present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance. The case was fixed for evidence of the defendants when on 27-3-1982 the parties effected a compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties the suit is decreed to the effect that the defendants shall pay Rs. 22,000.00 to the plaintiff. The said amount shall be deposited in the court on or before 15-6-1982. In case they fail to deposit the said amount by the said date the plaintiff would be entitled to Rs. 40,000.00 . Parties are left to bear their own costs of the suit in view of compromise. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated : 27-3-1982. Sd/- Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepore.

3. The present civil revision has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners. The primary ground taken on their behalf is that the compromise had not been recorded in writing nor signed by the parties or their counsel. At the motion stage, reliance was placed on Dalip Singh V/s. Raj Mall, 1981 Punj LJ 298, and my learned brother Tewatia, J. expressing some doubt about the correctness of the view, admitted the case for a hearing by the Division Bench. That is how the matter is before us.

4. Inevitably, the controversy herein must turn on the specific language of O.23, R.3, Civil P.C. 1976. (hereinafter called the Code ). However before adverting thereto in some detail, I must notice that it is somewhat surprising that despite the fact that this provision has been on the statute book for well-nigh eight decades or more yet a true analysis of its two distinct parts does not seem to have been made precedentially or in any case learned counsel for the parties were unable to bring it to our notice. Since the matter has not been examined from an angle from which I propose to view the same, it seems not only apt but necessary to first highlight the larger context of the legislative history of this provision.

5. It seems unnecessary to delve back into the corresponding provisions of the earlier Code of Civil Procedure, 1883, and it suffices our purpose to notice the provisions as originally enacted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. What, however, calls for pointed notice is the amendment made in this provision also by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. Thereby, specifically the words "in writing and signed by the parties" were inserted in the opening part of this Rule and a change wad also effected in the closing part thereof. Apparently, as a necessary consequence of these changes, a proviso was