Compromise of suit

In another suit judgment and decree passed on same subject was challenged by residents of the locality admitting that Mosque/Madrassa was built by the finances provided by a foreign (UAE) national through one of the defendants

Judgment and decree passed in other suit was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court on the ground that the other suit was not-maintainable as suit filed under S.92, C.P.C. relating to Public Trust could not have been allowed to be compromised

Compromise was in violation of the requirement of S.92, C.P.C.

Parties aimed to prejudice the interests of the applicant and their act was not devoid of any misrepresentation

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 12(2), C.P.C. set aside judgment and decree passed on the basis of compromise

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellate Court remanded the suit back to the Trial Court and directed it to provide an opportunity for both parties to present evidence

Validity

Trial Court had not decided the suit on its merits but instead disposed of the matter on the basis of findings that the suit was barred by res judicata

However, the instant suit constituted a fresh cause of action as a compromise decree was a contract between the parties of a lawsuit and if either party breached the terms of the decree, it gave rise to a fresh cause of action, allowing the aggrieved party to seek legal recourse

Revision petition was dismissed.

If either party breaches the terms of the decree, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action, allowing the aggrieved party to seek legal recourse.

Impugned order, judgment and decrees had been passed when the petitioner conceded the claim of the respondents; meaning thereby the same was a consent decree against which no appeal lies except certain exceptions which had not been agitated rather the petitioner contented before the appellate court that he was ready to transfer the same land in favour of the respondents while the whole corpus of land according to the gift mutation did not exist on the spot

Trial Court as well as appellate court had rightly adjudicated upon the matter in hand and had not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court

Petition stood dismissed in limine.

Compromise between the parties might be of whole suit or a part thereof and might even include the matter that did not relate to the suit.

When no reply to civil miscellaneous application had been given, the contents of the application had to be admitted as correct

Court could only record a compromise by way of any lawful agreement

Present application for compromise of suit having been filed contrary to O.XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C., was not by way of any lawful agreement or compromise which was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed pre-emption suit wherein they submitted agreement between the parties to the suit and prayed for the decision of the same on the basis of settled terms of agreement and in alternative prayed for additional evidence

Factum of execution of settlement was denied by the defendants-respondents and plaintiffs-petitioners moved another application for comparison of signatures and thumb-marks and by means of another application, the agreement purported to have been arrived at in between the parties before a `Jirga' was prayed to be put to the defendant for its admission and in addition to such applications, another application under Art.163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was also moved for decision of the suit on special oath

Applications were dismissed concurrently

Validity

When application intimating the settlement in between the parties was brought before the court in any suit, then it was incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself as to the execution and existence of compromise and when question arose as to whether or not , there had been a compromise in between the parties, the same had to be decided after regular inquiry by taking evidence and rejection of such application summarily was not proper and refusal to enter into such inquiry would in fact militate against the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. as under the said provision of law, recording of compromise was not a formality but a mandatory one, as such, order had been made appealable in terms of O.XLIII, R.1(m) C.P.C.

Courts below had not exercised their jurisdiction vested in them and had committed illegality in dismissing the applications moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners

Order of the Trial Court, as well as, the judgment of the Appellate Court were declared illegal and the same were set aside

Appellate Court before whom application for decision of the suit on the basis of settlement was moved, was directed to hold regular inquiry as to the execution and existence of the compromise in between the parties by granting ample opportunities to both the parties to produce their version and then to decide the same by means of speaking order.