M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) - Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 & 2 had filed a suit for declaration and possession challenging the sale deeds dated 04.12.2002 and another sale deed dated 24.01.2003, which had been executed in favour of petitioner Adarsh Kumar, defendant No.1. On 25.01.2005, an application was moved in the Court mentioning therein that the matter has been compromised. The statements of the parties were recorded. After the compromise EX.CX was placed on record, statements of both the parties were recorded on 25.01.2005 and the case was fixed for the date already fixed by the trial Court earlier i.e. 10.02.2005. On 10.02.2005, the case was further adjourned to 19.02.2005, for putting up the matter before the Lok Adalat as per the request of the parties., On10.02.2005, the case was ordered to be placed before the Lok Adalat on 29.02.2005. Somehow the decree was not passed on the basis of compromise on 19.02.2005, but the case was adjourned to 05.03.2005. On 05.03.2005, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application to withdraw the admission in writing made before the Court by moving an application Annexure P-4. Vide impugned order dated 04.08.2008, the trial Court allowed the application for withdrawing the statements made on the basis of compromise after framing following issues :

1. Whether the parties entered into lawful compromise vide writing dated 25.01.2005, after duly understanding its contents? Onus on the parties.

2. Whether compromise EX.CX, is not as per the demarcation stated to have been given by the parties as per spot, if so to what extent? OPP.

3. Relief.

2. It is the order dated 24.08.2008, deciding the above said issues which has been challenged in this revision petition.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent.

Main contention of counsel for the defendant-petitioner is that once the compromise has been recorded in the Court, it was not open to the plaintiffs-respondents to withdraw the admissions.

4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, at length, I am of the opinion that a decree can always be passed on the basis of an admission made by the defendant-respondent in the Court as per provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. A decree on the basis of compromise can always be passed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. In the present case, a decree on the basis of compromise had not been passed. An application for withdrawal of the compromise/admission was made. The trial Court while allowing the application has observed that the pending suit cannot be adjudicated finally in terms of the compromise only. However, the effect of admissions made by the parties on the basis of the compromise would be seen at the time of final adjudication of the case. After making above said observations, the trial Court safeguarding the interests of the parties has left it open to the parties to take the advantage of the admissions made in writing before the Court at the time of final adjudication of the matter.

5. No ground is made out for interference. However, in view of the fact that the plaintiffs-respondents after initiating the compromise proceedings have ultimately withdrawn, it is a fit case where costs should have been imposed upon the plaintiffs-respondents Sukhwant Singh and Nasib Singh, for unnecessarily wasting the precious time of the Court. The suit filed in the year 2003, could not be decided till 2009, for a period of six years solely on account of the statements made and withdrawn by the plaintiffs-respondents. The trial Court ought to have imposed costs upon the plaintiffs-respondents while allowing the application of the plaintiffs-respondents. While dismissing the revision petition, it is ordered that the plaintiffs-respondents will be liable to pay total costs of Rs.10,000/-. The defendants will be entitled to recover the costs from the plaintiffs-respondents.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 03.10.2009. The trial Court will proceed with the