1999 Supreme(P&H) 960

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.K.Srivastava and J.S.Khehar JJ.
Kashmira Singh (Died) Through L.R.
Versus
Gram Panchayat Of Village Budha Khera And Anr.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 1730 of 1997,
Regular First Appeal No. 297 of 1990,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 1, 1999

A compromise decree passed by a Court on the basis of a compromise entered into by a Panch of a Gram Panchayat, who was duly authorized by the Gram Panchayat to follow the proceedings and take a decision in the case, cannot be recalled under Section 151 of the CPC on the ground that the Panch acted beyond his authority or that the compromise was entered into as a result of fraud or misrepresentation.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 151 - COMPROMISE DECREE - RECALL - GRAM PANCHAYAT - AUTHORIZATION OF PANCH - VALIDITY OF COMPROMISE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - ORDER 23 RULE 3A C.P.C. - SCOPE - FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION - CIVIL SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY: 1. A compromise decree passed by a Court on the basis of a compromise entered into by a Panch of a Gram Panchayat, who was duly authorized by the Gram Panchayat to follow the proceedings and take a decision in the case, cannot be recalled under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that the Panch acted beyond his authority or that the compromise was entered into as a result of fraud or misrepresentation. 2. The validity of the compromise and the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation can only be examined and adjudicated upon in an independent civil suit filed by the Gram Panchayat, as these are matters that require the leading of evidence and a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances. 3. Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC, which bars suits to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful, does not apply to cases where the compromise is alleged to have been vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. Such cases can be challenged by filing an application under Section 151 of the CPC or by filing an independent civil suit.

Fact of the Case:

The Gram Panchayat, Budha Khera, filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in an RFA, which was allowed in accordance with a compromise arrived at between the parties. The compromise was signed by Roshan Lal, Panch, on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and Smt. Charan Kaur, daughter of the deceased appellant. The Gram Panchayat alleged that Roshan Lal acted beyond his authority and that the compromise was entered into as a result of fraud and misrepresentation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Gram Panchayat had duly authorized Roshan Lal, Panch, to follow the proceedings in the RFA and take a decision in the case. The compromise deed signed by Roshan Lal was, therefore, valid and binding on the Gram Panchayat. The Court further held that the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation made by the Gram Panchayat could not be examined and adjudicated upon in the present application under Section 151 of the CPC. These allegations required the leading of evidence and a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances, which could only be done in an independent civil suit filed by the Gram Panchayat.

Issues: 1. Whether the compromise entered into by Roshan Lal, Panch, on behalf of the Gram Panchayat was valid and binding on the Gram Panchayat. 2. Whether the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation made by the Gram Panchayat could be examined and adjudicated upon in the present application under Section 151 of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Gram Panchayat had duly authorized Roshan Lal, Panch, to follow the proceedings in the RFA and take a decision in the case. The compromise deed signed by Roshan Lal was, therefore, valid and binding on the Gram Panchayat. 2. The Court further held that the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation made by the Gram Panchayat could not be examined and adjudicated upon in the present application under Section 151 of the CPC. These allegations required the leading of evidence and a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances, which could only be done in an independent civil suit filed by the Gram Panchayat.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 151 of the CPC, holding that it was not maintainable and that the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation could only be challenged by filing an independent civil suit.