Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants No. 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 55/2013 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the trial court on I.A. No. 1, whereby the court rejected a compromise petition filed by the parties. The suit was instituted for partition and separate possession. During its pendency, the parties amicably settled their dispute and filed a compromise petition. The trial court, without examining the parties or recording its satisfaction as to the genuineness of the compromise, rejected the petition. The High Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the record, found that the trial court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The court noted that the trial court did not apply its mind to the compromise and did not record any satisfaction as required by law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the compromise petition in accordance with law. The court directed the trial court to examine the parties and pass appropriate orders within three months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Order 23 Rule 3 CPC - Duty of Court - The trial court rejected a compromise petition in a partition suit without examining the parties or recording satisfaction as to the lawful agreement. The High Court held that the court must apply its mind and record satisfaction before accepting or rejecting a compromise. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an error of law apparent on the face of the record, as the trial court's order rejecting the compromise petition was passed without following the mandatory procedure under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without recording satisfaction as to the genuineness of the compromise and without following the mandatory procedure.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi, in O.S. No. 55/2013 on I.A. No. 1, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the compromise petition in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to examine the parties and pass appropriate orders within three months.
Law Points
- Compromise decree
- Order 23 Rule 3 CPC
- duty of court to examine compromise
- recording of compromise
- satisfaction of court
- non-compliance with procedural requirements
- writ of certiorari
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
