IMPORTANT POINT
Compromise of suit—Withdrawal of lis unconditionally—Court never recorded any compromise—No decree was passed—The only remedy available to a person is to approach the same Court, which passed the decree and no separate suit is maintainable in view of bar created by Rule 3-A of Order 23 of C.P.C.

Permod Kohli, J:(Oral) This is an application seeking recalling of the order dated January 20,2006, passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 3565 of 2001.

2. The main ground contended in the application is that the compromise entered into between the parties, is not lawful, and thus, the compromise recorded by this Court by passing the impugned order needs to be set aside and the lis revived.

3. With a view to prove that the compromise entered was not lawful, fraud is alleged, Para 9 of the application contains the allegations of fraud. What has been stated in the aforesaid para is noticed herein:-

“That in the present case the respondent has totally resiled from the oral compromise entered into between the parties and has constrained the appellant/applicant to approach this Hon’ble Court again for getting his appeal revived. The appellant/applicant has been fraudulently made to suffer the statement before this Hon’ble Court on 20.1.2006. A great injustice would be done if this Hon’ble Court does not revive the appeal filed by the appellant/applicant which was got dismissed as withdawn as the parties had compromised to its original number”.

4. It is useful to take note of the order passed by this Court, which is sought to be recalled and the same is reproduced below:-

“Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that R.S.A. No. 3949 of 2001 is also between the same parties and as such, since the matter in the present two appeals has been compromised, therefore, the aforesaid appeal be also disposed of along-with the present appeal.

Ram Kishan-appellant is present in person. He states that in view of the settlement between the parties, the present appeal be dismissed as withdraw. He further states that the suit filed by him may also be dismissed as withdrawn.

Shri R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent- Hari Ram has no objection if the prayer of the appellant in the present case, is allowed.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. and suit filed by Ram Kishan is also dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the fact that the suit filed by the appellant-Ram Kishan has been dismissed as withdrawn, the R.S.A.No. 3949 of 2001, has been rendered infructuous and is also disposed of as such.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Ram Kishan further states that he accepts the Will dated July 16, 1984, executed by Paliya alias Richpal in favour of Hari Ram as correct”.

From the aforesaid order, it is evident that Ram Kishan one of the appellants in R.S.A. No.3565 of 2001, appeared before this Court and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal on the basis of some compromise allegedly entered into between the parties outside the Court. Ram Kishan also sought withdrawal of the suit filed by him,where from R.S.A. No. 3565 of 2001 had arisen. Simultaneously, another Regular Second Appeal No. 3949 of 2001 filed by Hari Ram, who is respondent in R.S.A. No. 3565 of 2001 was also disposed of as infructuous. Apart from that, Ram Kishan also himself made admission that he accepts the Will dated July 16,1984. This statement of Ram Kishan was also taken on record by the Court. The questions that arise are (i) whether order dated January 20,2006,is an order in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. and (ii) whether alleged fraud is committed by the respondents with the applicant in Court proceedings persuading the Court to pass the order.

5. From the plain reading of the order dated January 20,2006, it is evident that this Court has not recorded any compromise between the parties. As a matter of fact, no compromise was made in the Court written or verbal. The Court only recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the parties present and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal as also the suit. In my considered opinion, this cannot be termed or construed an order of recording a compromise in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. It is a simple order under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C where a party seeks to withdraw suit or abandon claim unconditionally reser