IMPORTANT POINT
A party is required to enter witness box in order to refute allegations made against him or to support his pleading in his written statement.

Arun Bhansali, J.— This application has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff Magan Bhai in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.10/1989 under Section 151 read with Order XXIII, Rule 3A CPC for recalling the judgment/order dated 7.12.2005 passed by this Court, whereby, the appeal filed by appellant therein was allowed and suit for specific performance of contract filed by the respondent was dismissed on the basis of compromise.

2. The facts in brief leading to filing of the present application are that Magan Bhai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ irrespective of his position as respondent in the first appeal and applicant in the present application) filed a suit for specific performance of oral contract dated 23.3.1977, which was later on reduced in writing on 19.4.1977 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bali executed between the plaintiff and Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant irrespective of his position as appellant in the regular first appeal and the respondent in the present application). The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 3.1.1989.

3. The defendant filed regular first appeal before this Court. The appeal was admitted on 7.3.1989 after hearing counsel for the plaintiff, who was in caveat.

4. The appeal remained pending before this Court for considerable period and from the record it appears that on 28.11.2005 an application was filed in the regular appeal signed by plaintiff and defendant, counsel for defendant, so also, by counsel for plaintiff Mr. Mahendra Parihar, who had filed Vakalatnama on the same day i.e. 28.11.2005 on behalf of the plaintiff. The application was filed to the effect that parties have entered into compromise and the compromise was being presented today and the same be ordered to be verified so that order may be passed on the compromise. The application was presented by the counsel for defendant. The application was accompanied by another application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 CPC signed by the plaintiff and defendant, who were identified by counsel for defendant and the newly appointed counsel for plaintiff.

5. The application was also accompanied by one compromise deed dated 26.11.2005 indicating the terms of compromise and was signed by plaintiff and defendant and marks of their thumb impressions were also there on the said document. The plaintiff was identified by one Inder Raj Bhandari, Advocate and there were two witnesses, who had signed the said compromise.

6. The Dy. Registrar (Judicial) made the following endorsement on the application:

“Presented by Mr. Magan Bhai Gopal Bhai Plaintiff Respondent and Mr. Lachha Ram s/o Manroopji defendant Appellant Sh. R.R. Nagori, Counsel for defendant Appellant present. Terms of the compromise explained to the plaintiff & respondent both. Plaintiff respondent is identified by Mr. Mahendra Parihar, Advocate. Enrollment No.R757/99, Azad Basti, Opp Court-Bali-Distt-Pali. Defendant-appellant is identified by Sh. R. R. Nagori Advocate hence verified.

Sd/-

28.11.2005”

7. After filing of the said application on 28.11.2005 an application came to be filed by one Ms. Pavinder Kaur under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as party respondent to the appeal on 05.12.2005. It was, inter alia, indicated that during pendency of the appeal the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sale regarding the suit land with her and, therefore, if the decree is passed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the same would adversely affect her rights.

8. This Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7.12.2005 after hearing counsel for plaintiff, defendant and applicant Ms. Pavinder Kaur, allowed the appeal and the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed. In terms of the compromise, it was ordered that the plaintiff would give required rights to the defendant for getting the suit property vacated from the legal representa