IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :14.10.2025 DARSHAN SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant No. 1 against the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-16), passed by the Additional District Judge, Moga, vide which the application by the defendant- petitioner seeking to recall the compromise and permission to contest the case and to file a written statement was dismissed.

2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The plaintiffs- respondents had filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 25.09.2015, and alternatively, a suit for recovery of Rs. 95,00,000/-. The original sale agreement dated 25.09.2015 was duly placed on record but was subsequently lost from the file, and an order was passed for its reconstruction. The matter was compromised between the plaintiffs and defendants on 08.12.2018 (although the compromise was effected on 07.12.2018, the statements of the parties were recorded on 08.12.2018). Thereafter, the matter remained pending before the Court. On 29.03.2022, the defendant-petitioner filed an application seeking to recall the compromise and to contest the case on its merits.

3. It was the case of the petitioner-defendant that petitioner-defendant No. 1 Darshan Singh was unwell and medically incapacitated due to heavy business losses, and therefore could not comprehend the terms and conditions of the compromise. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had assured the defendant that amount received from him in the company would be adjusted accordingly, and that defendant No. 2 was not present in India but had gone to Canada. The defendant-petitioner asserted that the compromise was neither lawful nor enforceable and claimed that it was forged and fabricated.

4. The application filed by the defendant-petitioner was contested on the grounds that it was preferred solely to delay the enforcement of the compromise, which had been entered into with full understanding and consent.

5. It is not in dispute that after the compromise between the parties on 07.12.2018, Darshan Singh (petitioner-defendant No. 1) appeared before the Court on 08.12.2018 and made a statement confirming that the compromise had been effected and that he would adhere to its terms. Similarly, defendant No. 2, Chhinder Singh, who was in Canada at the time, appeared before the Court on 21.02.2019, accepting the compromise and its due execution. By their statements before the Court on 08.12.2018 and 21.02.2019, both defendants admitted their signatures on the compromise and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of agreement Ex.C-1. The defendant-petitioner does not deny these statements made before the Court. However, the defendant-petitioner disputes the validity of the compromise. Defendant No. 2 has neither disputed the compromise nor his statement made before the Court on 21.02.2019.

6. Therefore, since the petitioner himself does not dispute the statement made by him on 08.12.2018, as well as the statement made by defendant No. 2 on 21.02.2019, he is left with no valid ground to challenge the compromise Ex. C-1 on the basis that it was forged and fabricated. The petitioner has admitted the due execution of the compromise and agreed to comply with its terms as effected between the parties before the Court.

7. It is noteworthy that after making the statement on 08.12.2018, the payment stipulated under the compromise was not made within the prescribed time. It was only in the year 2022 after expiry of stipulated time, i.e., on 29.03.2022, that the petitioner sought to withdraw from the compromise dated 07.12.2018. Therefore, the admission made by the petitioner-defendant cannot be allowed to be withdrawn in manner suggested by petitioner. The admission ma