A. Palaniappa Maniyagar vs Andiappa Maniyagar and Others

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.—The lower Court misdirected itself when it refused to decide in a petition under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil

Procedure Code, and directed the same to be posted along with suit. Under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the Court is bound to see

whether the allegation of the parties that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, is true or not.

In the instant case, the parties not only filed a compromise memo, but let in evidence to show that there was an adjustment outside the Court

which was in pursuance of a lawful agreement. The Court is bound to enquire into it and find whether the adjustment as claimed is true or not. If it

is so satisfied, it shall record the compromise and pass a decree in terms thereof. There is of course, no indication in Order 23, Rule 3, Civil

Procedure Code, as to what has to be done by the Court when it is not satisfied that there was such an adjustment as pleaded. Obviously, if the

Court after enquiring into such petition for recording compromise is satisfied that there was no such adjustment and the there was no lawful

agreement or compromise from which the alleged adjustment could be said to flow from, then it has the jurisdiction to dismiss the said petition. In

any event, the Court has to pass an order on the said petition and make a decision thereon, the failure of which amounts to non-exercise of

jurisdiction. The Court ought not to have posted the petition along with the suit but ought to have decided the same. In this view the order of the

Court below is set aside and the matter remitted to the District Munsif''s Court, Dharmapuri, for the Court to decide on the evidence already on

record whether the satisfaction pleaded or the adjustment put up is true or not No costs. If it is satisfied that there was no such adjustment, it shall

proceed with the old suit and dispose of the same before September, 1976.