Aradhyula Ramatarakamma vs Badineni Anjaneya Vara Prasada Rao

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Revision is directed against the order dated 25-9-1992 passed by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in I.A. No. 1572 of 1987 in Original Suit No. 37 of 1982. The said petition was filed before the Court below purporting to be u/s 151 CPC to record the compromise basing on Ex.A-1, which was an agreement entered inter se the petitioner and the defendant is the respondent. The plaintiff is the petitioner and the defendant is the respondent. The petitioner has instituted the suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent relating to the land in O.S. No. 37 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. While the suit was pending, compromise was entered into under Ex.A-1 inter se the petitioner and the respondent at the instance of the elders and well-wishers under which the suit was not to proceed, in consideration of the respondent paying Rs. 10,000/- and also delivering an extent of Ac.3-75 cents in D.No. 715/B2 with effect from 17-8-1987, for enjoyment by the petitioner for a period of two years and then to redeliver the possession thereof to the respondent after the said period of two years. Evidence, both oral and documentary, was led. Ex.A-1 is dated 17-8-1987. It seems that there was some confusion and then again the matter was sorted out and what was agreed to is not Rs. 10,000/-, but Rs. 20,000/-, and that in addition to the amount of Rs. 10,000/- already paid payment of Rs,10,000/- was secured on the promissory note dated 21-8-1987 executed by the respondent in petitioner''s favour and that was marked as Ex.A-2. No doubt, Ex.A-1 recites that possession has been delivered apart from payment of Rs. 10,000. When I.A. No. 1572 of 1987 was filed to record the compromise in terms thereof, the same was contested. Both oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties and after appreciation thereof the Court below had allowed the said I.A. recording the compromise.

Assailing the order of the Court-below, Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a variance of the pleadings by the respondent in I.A. No. 1572 of 1987 to that of Ex.A-1 and there is further variance by the Court-below in passing the decree as it does not conform to the prayer in I.A. No. 1572 of 1987. He takes me to the order of the Court below and also relies upon my judgment rendered in Akula Satyavathi Vs. P.N. Vasantha, . In the said judgment I held that the compromise, after amendment of the provisions contained under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC in the year 1976 should only be in writing and should not be oral. Basing on the same. Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends mat in the instant case, Ex.A-1 only shows the agreement of payment of Rs. 10,000/- by the respondent to the petitioner and delivery of Ac.3-75 cents for enjoyment by the petitioner for a period of two years and then redelivery thereof. But the compromise decree traversed beyond the above terms and, as such, impermissible.

On the other hand, Mr. T. Bali Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, contends that while it is true that what is recited in Ex.A-1, as mentioned supra but the said document alone cannot be considered and the agreement to pay Rs. 10,000/- in addition to Rs. 10,000/- which was reduced into writing in the shape of a promissory note - Ex.A-2 - and also filing of memo accepting the same under Ex.C-1 have also got to be considered, and in fact, the Court below considered all those aspects and recorded a finding of fact that there was a compromise entered into and that basing on the said finding of fact, decree was passed recording the compromise and that there is no error of jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

The proposition of law laid down by me that every compromise after 1976 amendment of CPC concerning Order 23, Rule 3 CPC should be in writing cannot be doubted and I reaffirm the same. It is also true that I.A. No. 1572 of 1987 was purported to have been filed u/s 151 CPC, but to do substantial justice what has to be seen is not the quotation of legal provision, but the substance of it. As such, for misquotation of legal provision the impugned order cannot be set at naught. It shall be construed that the said petition was filed under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC. of course, it is also practice to mention at the time of filing of each petition quoting the specific provision read with 151 CPC, but in effect what was filed was to record a compromise which comes within the ambit of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. If there was no further documentary evidence apart from Ex.A-1, but oral terms in variance with Ex.A-1 were projected by the respondent then such a plea would have come within the mischief of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, If there was no further documentary evidence apart from Ex.A-1, but oral terms in variance with Ex.A-1 were projected by the respondent then such a plea would have coming within the mischief of Order 23 Rules 3 CPC, such oral terms could not have been projected by the respondent. But, in the instant case, Ex. A-2 is a document and Ex.C-1 is also a document, that on of Exs.A-1, A-2 and C-1 is not disputed. Further, under Ex.C-1 it is made clear that pursuant to the compromise a promissory note for Rs. 10,000/- was executed by the petitioner, which was marked and proved as Ex.A-2 apart from stating the other terms. The Court-below has also examed the parties and made an endorsement to that effect dated 31-8-1987 i.e., on the same date of filing of the said memo (Ex.C-1). As such, Exs.C-1 and A-2 have to be read into Ex.A-1 and the net result is that the compromise was entered into in writing and the same was factually appreciated in proper perspective and a correct finding was recorder to that effect and I do not see any error in the order rendered by the Court-below.

The CRP is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.