IMPORTANT POINT
If a compromise is brought between parties in writing and put before Court, Court would pass decree in terms of compromise.

K. Kannan, J.—The revision is against the order rejecting a petition filed under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order passed by the Court recording a statement of the first defendant who is the petitioner before the Court that he was willing to pay to the plaintiff Rs.7,15,000, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to secure a decree for specific performance as sought for. After the Court obtained a statement, it proceeded to deliver a judgment on 5.8.2010 making reference to a statement of the party as the basis for passing the judgment in the manner he did. The petition has been filed under Section 151 CPC subsequently contending that his Counsel had colluded with the other side and that he being illiterate did not know the effect of the statement that he had made in Court. The Court itself-did not undertake the procedure as mandated under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and without a written compromise signed by the parties, it could not have passed the decree. The decree could not also exist without the terms of the settlement being put in writing and placed before the Court.

On dealing with the petition, the Court held that the statement of the petitioner had been recorded by the Court, which bore thumb impression of the party as well as the Signatures of the Counsel. The Court held that it would be impossible to accept a plea that he had not known what the Court was recording as his statement and dismissed the petition.

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988) 1 SCC 270 to constitute an adjustment, the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in the decree and when the parties entered into a compromise during the hearing of the suit, there was no reason why the requirement of the compromise to be reduced in writing in the form of an instrument signed by the parties should be dispensed with. The Supreme Court held that a Court would, therefore, insist the parties to reduce the terms into writing and in the absence of such agreement in writing there shall be no lawful compromise. A decision of this Court in Shri Santan Dharam Sabha v. Basant Lal Gulati and others., (1990-2) 98 PLR 200 was also cited to contend that the compromise must be in writing and the statements of parties and their Counsel recorded would not be sufficient in compliance of the Order XXIII, Rule 3. The case was holding so by referring a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel referred to above.

3. The whole approach of the petitioner stands on an erroneous premise that the decree has been passed in terms of a compromise. If a compromise is brought between the parties in writing and put before the Court, the Court would pass a decree in terms of the compromise and make the compromise as a part in the decree. If the compromise memo filed in Court .and supported by one party is denied by the other, the procedure under Order XXIII, Rule 3 mandates that the Court shall, without adjourning the case, decide on the validity of the compromise and if it finds the compromise to be duly made to pass a decree in terms thereof. A procedure under Order XXIII, Rule 3 stipulates for recording of a compromise which has to be in writing is different from a situation where a party gives a concession that he does not want to contest further. The Courts are not without power to act on such concession of a party and allow for’ decisions to be made on the basis of which concession or admission. The Judgment on admission does not need to go through a rigma-role that Order XXIII. Rule 3 have. Here the judgment is on what the party admits to a Presiding Officer in Court. There ought to be a greater degree of credibility for an act of a Judge in the course of his proceedings. The Order XII refers to the relevant provision for admissions. The power of the Court to pass judgment on an ad