Ahamad Mohiuddin vs Abdurrahman

The facts giving rise to this Revision petition are that the Petitioner filed a suit against the Respondent and applied for an order for attachment before judgment which was granted. Subsequently, there was a compromise between the parties, which was filed in Court. The compromise petition was also verified by the office but when it was presented before the Judge a plea was raised by the Respondent that the signature on the compromise petition was obtained by the exercise of undue influence over him, and that he wanted to lead evidence to show that it was by undue influence that the signature on the compromise petition was obtained.

The lower court allowed the Respondent to Iead evidence with regard to the plea of andue influence. It is against this order that Plaintiff-Petitioner has come before us in revision.

It is admitted by the learned advocate the Respondent that the compromise peti-bore the signature of his client as well as of his Vakil. Therefore it is clear that the compromise petition was filed by both the parties. It is now sought to resile from the promise and the ground urged is that the( signature of the Respondent on the compromise petition was obtained by undue influence. It to be observed that Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC which relates to the com-promise of suits contemplates that where both the parties have entered into a lawful agree-ment and pray that a decree be passed in If terms, of the compromise, the court shall record the compromise and draw up a decree.

It is not urged before us that the agreement that was entered into by the parties was an. unlawful agreement, i.e., one against law or public policy, for if it were so the court was not bound to record the compromise. It may refuse to do so. The only objection to the recording of the compromise is that the consent of the Respondent to the compromise was obtained by undue influence. Therefore, where the agreement is lawful, but it becomes voidable for the ''reason that it was obtained by undue influence, the remedy of the party aggrieved is to file a regular suit for avoiding the compromise. He could not move to set aside the compromise in the same proceedings. The words of Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC signify that it is obligatory on the court to order such agreement or compromise to be recorded, where a suit has been adjusted by lawful agreement. We might herein refer to the decisions of other courts which have taken the same view. The Madras High Court in the case of Kuppuswami Reddi and Another Vs. Pavanambal, , and the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mirza Husain Yar Beg Vs. Radha Kishan and Others, , have adopted the same view. The aggrieved party may file a regular suit to redress his grievance. We set aside the order of the lower court and direct the lower court record the compromise and dispose of the case according to law. The Petitioner will have his costs of this petition. The advocate''s fee is fixed at Rs. 30/-, (Rupees thirty only).

In view of this order, the connected miscellaneous appeal is not pressed and is, therefore, dismissed.