Shri Santan Dharam Sabha vs Basant Lal Gulati and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—By this order I shall dispose of two appeals--RSA 469 and 470 of 1990 as they have arisen out of the same Judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated November 25, 1989.

It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case, as the appeals can be disposed of on the short point that the lower appellate Court could not have acted upon the statements of parties and their counsel according sanction to the co(sic)aprornise entered into by the parties. There is a further point raised in R.S.A. No. 469/1990 that Basant Lal Gulati, one of the appellats was not a party to the consenting decree whereas on behalf of other appellants, the counsel had made the statement.

On the file of R.S.A. No. 470/1990, statements of counsel for the parties recorded were produced.

The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel, has specifically held that in order to attract the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, Coda of Civil Procedure, there has to be a compromise entered into by the parties in writing, and merely because the statements of the parties and their counsel were recorded will not be sufficient compliance of Order 23, Rule 3. C.P.C. The aforesaid decision was followed in Sumer and Another Vs. Vijay Singh and Another, .

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the impugned Judgment and decree can not be sustained in law. Even on the second point that one of the appellants namely Basant Lal Gulati was not a party to the alleged consent order, his cause could not be disposed of by the alleged consent order. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are allowed, with no order as to costs. The decree and Judgments of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak are set aside. The parties are directed to appear in his court on Jaue 4, 1990 who will decide the appeal according to law.