Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C.) No. 5068 of 2012. ----- 1. Smt. Devi Agarwal 2. Sri Ravi Agarwal 3. Sri Rohit Agarwal 4. Sri Rajiv Agarwal Petitioners. Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal 2. Smt. Hemlata Lath 3. Smt. Sheela Devi 4. Sri Manoj Kumar 5. Sri Vikas Agarwal 6. Sri Vivek Agarwal 7. Smt. Sunita Gupta 8. Smt. Kabita Kabra 9. Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal Respondents. ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioners : Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri R.R. Tiwari For the Respondents : Sri Ayush Aditya, Sri S. Shekhar, Sri D.K. Prasad ----- 15/09.09.2013. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Sub-Judge-IX, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006, whereby and where under he rejected the compromise petition filed by the parties and proceeded to decide the dispute between the parties through regular trial. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, once the compromise petition is in writing and signed by all the parties and by the said compromise petition, the entire suit is going to be satisfied, then the court has no other option but to record the compromise and pass the decree according to the compromise, even though later on some of the parties resiled from the compromise. Accordingly, it is submitted by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below had committed serious illegality by rejecting the compromise petition by saying that plaintiff and defendant no.3 had resiled from the compromise. On the other hand, Sri Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that in the instant case the compromise petition was not signed by all the parties. He submits that plaintiff no.3, defendant no.1D and defendant no.1E had not put their signature on the compromise petition. Under the said circumstances, the compromise filed in the aforesaid partition suit is not legally acceptable, hence, liable to be rejected. -2- In reply, Sri Ajit Kumar submits that plaintiff no.3 and defendant nos.1D & 1E had filed application in the court below, seeking permission of the court for signing the compromise petition. They further prayed that the suit be decreed on the basis of compromise. Sri D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.9, submits that aforesaid application filed by plaintiff no.3 and defendant nos.1D & 1E is still pending and no order passed on it. Accordingly, it is submitted that after rejection of compromise by the impugned order, the said application filed by plaintiff no.3, defendant nos.1D and 1E has become infructuous. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case and the provisions of law. Order XXIII Rule 3 of The Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows: " Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit] " From perusal of aforesaid provision, it is necessary that a compromise petition must be in writing and signed by the parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel (1988) 1 SCC 27.has held that when a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise then the same must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a complete agreement between them. Calcutta High Court in Molla Sirajul Haque and etc. vs. Gorachand Mullick and others reported in AIR 199.Calcutta 58 has held that if the compromise petition is not signed by the parties as required under the provision of Order XXIII of Rule 3 of the C.P.C., then the same is liable to be rejected. In the instant case, from perusal of the compromise petition (Annexure-3), I find that plaintiff no.3 namely, Smt. Hemlata Lath, defendant no.1D Sunita Gupta and defendant no.1E Kabita Kabra had -3- not signed the compromise petition. It is also an admitted position that subsequent application filed by the aforesaid parties namely, plaintiff no.3 defendant nos. 1D & 1E for seeking permission to sign the compromise has not been allowed and the same is remain pending in the court below and no order passed on it. Thus, it is an admitted position that on the compromise petition plaintiff no.3, defendant nos. 1D & 1E had not put their signature. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the compromise petition filed in the suit can not be accepted because the same is against the provision of order XXIII Rule 3. Since the compromise petition filed in the court below is not legally accepted, therefore, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Pramanik/