A settlement between the parties is required to be reduced into writing, as provided under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs, Sarup Chand and another against order dated September 10,1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing their application for review of an earlier order passed by the Additional District Judge, dated June 3, 1987.

2. Sarup Chand and another filed a suit for possession by ejectment of Jagdish Chand tenant from the property in suit which was let out on February 1, 1980. The construction of the building was alleged to have been completed in the year 1973 and thus, the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the case. The suit was filed on April 16, 1982 which was decreed by the trial Court on June 3, 1985. Jagdish Chand tenant filed an appeal which was pending before the Additional District Judge, and was allowed on June 3, 1987 on the alleged statement made by counsel for the landlords, respondents in the said appeal The review application was filed, because the learned counsel who appeared in the appeal, had no authority to make such a statement. The review application was dismissed on the ground that Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate, had been putting in appearance on behalf of Shri P. K. Gupta, Advocate who was representing the landlords in the trial Court, as well as in the appellate Court. A presumption was drawn that Shri Bansal, thus, had the authority to make a statement.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I found that there was no written or oral authority given to Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate to make a statement in Court. When the revision application was filed, replies were filed by some of the Advocate which may briefly be noticed. Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate in his reply stated that he was instructed by Shri P. K. Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of respondents (in that case), and statement was made at the instance of Shri Ravi Parkash Gupta, Advocate who assured him that Shri P. K. Gupta had asked him to make such a statement to withdraw the suit on his behalf. Thus he made a statement on the assurance of Shri R. P. Gupta, Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the appellant before the lower appellate Court. Shri P. K. Gupta, Advocate made a statement that he never engaged Shri R. K. Bansal Advocate to make any compromise statement in appeal According to him, he had submitted arguments for the decision of the appeal and the appeal was to be allowed in view of the recent decision of the High Court. Shri R. P. Gupta (Ravi Parkash) denied the allegations of Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate. From the material aforesaid, it was quite clear that there was no instructions with Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate either from the landlords directly or through Shri R. K. Gupta, Advocate to withdraw the suit by making any statement in the appeal.

4. Even otherwise if there was a settlement between the parties that was required to be reduced into writing, as provided under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh V/s. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988 2) 94 P L R 365, as well as by this Court in Sumer Singh V/s. Vijay Singh and Anr. , (1990.1) 97 P. L. R.350 , Gurpreet Singhs case was relied upon and it was further held that mere recording of statements of the parties in Court if they were signed by them and their counsel was not sfficient compliance of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code.

5. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the interprefation of law, as it existed then, the appeal was bound to fail and that is why such a statement was given by the counsel. Now the petitioners wanted to take benefit of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that even if exemption period under the Rant Act expired during the pendency of the civil suit, the benefit of the said Act, cannot be had and on that account, the order based on compromise was being challenged. It is not necessary to comment on this aspect of the matter though dealt with by the Additional D